Loading...
2008-765-Resolution No. 2008-059 Recorded 7/28/2008VIE D� { L GAL CO NSEL COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS IBJ 200D'�D� COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111 111011 1 .,, 07/28/2008 11:24:24 AM 2008-765 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution to Establish Transportation System Development Charges for those Properties Within * RESOLUTION NO. 2008-059 Unincorporated Deschutes County WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing on May 28, 2008, to consider establishing a transportation system development charge ("SDC") to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to serve the existing and growth -related needs in the unincorporated areas of the county; and WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish transportation system development charges; and WHEREAS, system development charges are incurred upon the decision to develop property at a specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than, the actual cost of providing public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density and/or intensity; and WHEREAS, system development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee provided by law or imposed as a condition of development; and WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon a development's receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not on the land, owner, or property, and, therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of property within the meaning of Section 11, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution or the legislation implementing that section; and WHEREAS, revenues from the system development charges are to be used for capital improvements in the unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries adjacent to the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend; and WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Road Department ("Department") staff, identifies the uses of an "improvement fee" SDC, and a "reimbursement fee" SDC, and considers the transportation capital improvement needs of the unincorporated county; and WHEREAS, the methodology proposes applying the SDCs to developing properties within the unincorporated county and outside of the designated urban growth boundaries of the cities of Sisters, La Pine, Redmond and Bend; and WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the public interest to provide transportation capital facilities through the use of general county revenues, SDCs, and matching funds from the State of Oregon; now, therefore, Page 1 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. The Board adopts the report, entitled Transportation System Development Charge Study, prepared by FCS Group, Inc. and DKS Associates, dated March 2008, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference (herein "Methodology" or "Methodology Report"). The Board authorizes the collection of transportation system development charges in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Section 2. The Board adopts the System Development Charge Project List, attached as Exhibit `B," and incorporated by reference. Section 3. DEFINITIONS. (A) "Applicant" shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building or development permit in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the boundaries and the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. (B) "Building" shall mean any structure, built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. (C) "Building Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (D) "Capital Improvement" shall mean a public facility or asset used for Transportation in the rural unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. (E) "Citizen or Other Interested Person" shall mean any person whose legal residence is within the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend, as evidenced by registration as a voter, or by other proof of residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is located within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters Redmond and Bend. (F) "County" shall mean Deschutes County, Oregon. (G) "Department" shall mean the Deschutes County Road Department. (H) "Development' shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements. (I) "Development Permit' shall mean an official document or certificate, other than a building permit, authorizing development. (J) "Encumbered" shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that obligates the County to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or Owner. (K) "Extra capacity facility or improvement' means one or more arterial and collector improvements that are necessary in the interest of public health, safety and welfare to increase traffic capacity to address new development. Such improvements include, but are not limited to, signalization, channelization, widening, acquisition of right-of-way and necessary easements, street extensions, railroad crossing protective devices, bridges and bike paths. Page 2 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) (L) "Improvement Fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed after the effective date of this resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this resolution to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the availability for use of the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and facilities necessary to meet the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and to provide for the public health and safety upon development. (M) "Manufactured Housing" shall mean a dwelling unit constructed primarily off-site and transported to another site for use. A unit located in a designated mobile home park shall be considered a manufactured housing dwelling unit; otherwise a manufactured housing unit shall be considered a single-family dwelling unit. (N) "Multi -family housing" shall mean attached residential dwelling units. (0) "Occupancy Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the occupation or use of any building or improvement authorized by a building permit. (P) "Owner" shall mean the person holding legal title to the real property upon which development is to occur. (Q) "Person" shall mean an individual, a corporation, including without limitation, limited liability corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity. (R) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is: (1) Required as a condition of development approval; and (2) an Extra Capacity Facility or Improvement; or (3) Identified in the capital improvement plan adopted pursuant to this resolution; and (4) either: (a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or (b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related. (S) "Reimbursement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or under construction on the effective date of this resolution. (T) "Road Department Director" or "Director" shall mean the appointed Road Department Director of Deschutes County, Oregon. (U) "Single-family housing" shall mean a detached residential dwelling unit located on an individual lot. (V) "System Development Charge" shall mean a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a combination thereof and an administrative recovery charge, assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of an occupancy permit. System development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, fee in Page 3 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a condition of development. (W) "System Development Charges Methodology" shall mean the methodology report adopted pursuant to this resolution, as amended. Section 4. APPLICABILITY. (A) A Transportation System Development Charge is herby imposed upon all new development for which a building permit is required within all unincorporated areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. This shall include new construction and alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit if such alteration, expansion or replacement results in an increase in the number of peak hour trips generated compared to the present number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on which the development is located. For alterations, expansions and replacements, the amount of the system development charge to be paid shall be the difference between the rate for the proposed development and the rate that would be imposed for the development prior to the alteration, expansion or replacement. Non-residential, farm -related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to be used on site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic are exempt. (B) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) shall be determined as follows: (1) For those land -use categories which are specifically identified in the methodology report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as identified in the Methodology Report. (2) For land -use categories for which no trip generation rate is included in the methodology report, the Director shall use the land -use category identified in the Methodology Report that is most similar in trip generation, and may consider seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust peak hour trip rates. An applicant who does not agree with the Director's decision may appeal this decision as outlined in Section 12 of this resolution. (C) Applicants may submit a request for an alternative rate for system development charges, subject to the following conditions: (1) In the event an applicant believes that the impact on County capital improvements resulting from the development is less than the fee established in this resolution, such applicant may submit a calculation for an alternative system development charge to the Director prior to issuance of a building permit. (2) The alternative system development charges rate calculations shall be based on data, information and assumptions contained in this resolution and the adopted methodology or an independent source, provided that the independent source is: (a) a local study supported by a database adequate for the conclusions contained in such study, (b) the study is performed using a generally accepted methodology and is based upon generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost analysis and demographics (c) The demonstrated number of peak hour trips is at least ten (10%) percent less than the number of peak hour trips set forth in the Methodology; and Page 4 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) (d) the demonstrated number of peak hour trips shall be documented by a registered traffic engineer. (3) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates comply with the requirements of this Section, the alternative system development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth in this resolution. (4) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not comply with the requirements of this Section, were not calculated by a generally accepted methodology, were not at least ten (10%) less than the peak hour trips calculated in the Methodology report or were not demonstrated by a registered traffic engineer, then the Director shall provide to the Applicant (by Certified mail, return receipt requested) written notification of the rejection of the alternative system development charges rates and the reason therefor. The decision of the Director shall be in writing and issued within ten (10) working days from the date all data is received for review. (5) Any applicant who desires an alternative system development charge shall submit a proposal therefore not later than the date a building permit is issued. Issuance of a building permit shall not be construed as approval of such proposal. (D) Subject to the provisions of this Resolution, the County hereby assesses and shall collect a transportation system development charge ("SDC") on the following schedule: (1) at the initial rate of $3,016 per peak hour trip, consisting of a $2,978 improvement fee, a $0 reimbursement fee, and a $38 administrative recovery charge. (2) on and after July 1, 2009 and before April 1, 2010, at the rate of $3,194 per peak hour trip, consisting of $3,154 improvement fee, a $0 reimbursement fee, and a $40 administrative recovery charge; (3) on and after April 1, 2010 and before January 1, 2011, at the rate of $3,371 per peak hour trip, consisting of $3,328 improvement fee, a $0 reimbursement fee, and a $43 administrative recovery charge; (4) on and after January 1, 2011 and before July 1, 2011, at the rate of $3,549 per peak hour trip, consisting of $3,504 per peak hour trip, $0 reimbursement fee, and a $45 administrative recovery charge (5) on and after July 1, 2011 the rate per peak hour trip shall be adjusted based upon the percentage increase in the construction cost index, published in January 2011 by the Engineering News Record for the City of Seattle, Washington. The calculation shall use July 1, 2008 and the peak hour trip rate of $3,549 as the starting point. (E) For purposes of subsection (D) of this section the implementation of the adjusted rate shall first apply to building permits for which a building permit application is accepted by the County as complete on and after the date indicated. (F) Unless otherwise adjusted by order of the Board of County Commission, on each succeeding July 1 after July 1, 2011, the rate per peak hour trip, consisting of the improvement fee, the reimbursement, if any and the administrative recovery charge shall be adjusted by the annual percentage increase or decrease in the construction cost index, published in the preceding January Page 5 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) by the Engineering News Record for the City of Seattle, Washington. The calculation shall use the previous July 1 and the then applicable rate per peak hour trip as the starting point. Section 5. UNINCORPORATED AREA OF LA PINE. Properties located in the unincorporated area south of the La Pine State Recreation Road and subject to the SDC assessed by Resolution Number 2006-010, shall pay the amount of the SDC assessed by this Resolution, less the amount of the SDC assessed by Resolution 2006-010. Section 6. COLLECTION. (A) The Transportation SDC's shall be collected and paid in full upon application for an occupancy permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060. (B) Notwithstanding the occupancy of the improvement without payment of the SDC, the SDC liability shall survive and be a personal obligation of the permittee. (C) Intentional failure to pay the SDC within sixty days of the due date shall result in a penalty equal to fifty percent of the SDC. Interest shall accrue from the sixty-day point at the legal rate established by statute. (D) In addition to an action at law and any statutory rights, the County may: (1) Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy; (2) Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development; (3) Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full, including penalties and interest; (4) For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any person controlling a delinquent corporate permittee and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent individual permittee. Section 7. CREDITS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (A) The County may grant a credit against the improvement fee portion, if any, of system development charges imposed pursuant to this resolution for the construction of any qualified public improvement. (B) Prior to issuance of a development permit, the applicant shall submit to the County a proposed plan and estimate of cost for construction of one or more qualified public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include: (1) a designation of the development project for which the proposed plan is being submitted; (2) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated and documentation as to the seller and purchase price; (3) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the plan; (4) an estimate of proposed construction costs certified by a professional architect or engineer; and (5) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed plan; and Page 6 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) (6) if the plan includes improvements that are not listed on the capital improvement plan adopted pursuant to this resolution, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that the improvement(s) qualify as an Extra Capacity Facility or Improvement. If the Director is satisfied that the applicant's proposed improvements (or a portion thereof) should be approved for credit, the Director shall prepare for Board approval a resolution amending the capital improvement plan. No credit shall be allowed for such proposed improvements until the Board approves an amendment to the capital improvement plan. (C) The credit provided for construction of a qualified public improvement shall be only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the minimum standard facility size and must be designed and constructed to provide additional capacity to meet projected future transportation needs. Improvements that address capacity deficiencies existing at the time of development are not eligible. In the case of improvements addressing both, only that portion providing future capacity is eligible. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit. (D) The Director is authorized to determine that the timing, location, design and scope of proposed improvement are consistent with and furthers the objectives of the County's capital improvements program and either: (1) the improvement is required to fulfill a condition of development approval; or (2) the improvement is within the impact area of the development. For purposes of this section, impact area is that geographic area determined by the Director in which the estimated peak hour traffic to be generated by the development exceeds ten (10%) percent of the existing average peak hour traffic. Existing traffic volumes shall be those observed within six months prior to filing the development application, adjusted for daily and seasonal traffic variations using factors provided by the Director. (E) Credit eligibility shall be determined by the Director. In addition to meeting the standards of this section, the following shall control: (1) No credits shall be issued for landscaping, street lighting, storm sewers, sidewalks, and erosion control; or sound walls, berms or other such mitigation devices. (2) Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant to the applicable comprehensive plan or development condition is not creditable. The reasonable market value of land purchased by the applicant from a third party to complete a required off-site improvement is creditable. (3) No credit shall be granted for utility relocation except for that portion which otherwise would have been the legal obligation of the county pursuant to a tariff, easement or similar relationship. (4) No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive plan. (5) No more than 13.5 percent of the total eligible construction cost shall be creditable for survey, engineering, and inspection. (F) All requests for credit vouchers must be in writing and filed with the Director not more than ninety -days after acceptance of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in accordance with the County's policies, practices, procedures and standards. The amount of any credit shall be determined by the Director and based upon the subject improvement construction contract Page 7 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) documents, or other appropriate information, provided by the applicant for the credit. Upon a finding by the Director that the contract amounts exceed prevailing market rates for a similar project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The Director shall provide the applicant with a credit voucher, on a form provided by the Department. The original of the credit voucher shall be retained by the Department. The credit voucher shall state a dollar amount that may be applied against any SDC imposed by the County against the subject property. In no event shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credit vouchers in excess of the SDC imposed. This paragraph applies only to issuance of credit vouchers and does not extend the deadline for credit redemption or otherwise modify the credit redemption deadline. (G) Credits shall be apportioned against the property which was subject to the requirement to construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, apportionment against lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportionate to anticipated average peak hour trips generated by the respective lots or parcels. Upon written application to the Director, however, credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot or parcel within the confines of the property originally eligible for the credit. Reapportionment shall be noted on the original credit voucher retained by the Department. (H) Any credits issued pursuant to this Resolution are assignable, however, they shall apply only to that property subject to the original condition for land use approval upon which the credit is based or any partitioned or subdivided parcels or lots of such property to which the credit has been apportioned. Credits shall only apply against SDC's, are limited to the amount of the fee attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit is sought and shall not be a basis for any refund. (I) Any credit must be redeemed no later than the issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. Under no circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of an occupancy permit. (J) Credit vouchers shall expire on the date ten years after the acceptance of the applicable improvement by the county. No extension of this deadline shall be granted. Section 8. FUND ESTABLISHED. The County hereby establishes a fund to be designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund," (herein Transportation SDC Fund or the Fund). (A) All SDC payments shall be deposited into the Transportation SDC F and immediately upon receipt. (B) The monies deposited into the Fund designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund," including interest on the Fund, shall be maintained separate and apart from all other accounts of the county and shall be used solely for the purpose of providing the capital improvements that provide for the increased capacity necessitated by new development, including but not limited to: (1) Design and construction plan preparation; (2) Permitting and fees; (3) Property acquisition, including any costs of acquisition, relocation or condemnation; (4) Construction of capital improvements; (5) Design and construction of storm and surface water drainage facilities associated with the construction of capital improvements and structures; Page 8 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) (6) Relocating utilities associated with the construction of improvements and structures; (7) Landscaping within the right of way or upon property disturbed by the construction of capital improvements; (8) Capital construction management and inspection; (9) Surveying, soils and material testing; (10) Acquisition of capital equipment used on association with capital construction or road maintenance or both; (11) Repayment of monies transferred to or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the County, including interest, which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein provided; (12) Payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any bonds or other indebtedness issued by the County to fund capital improvements; (13) Direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the consulting, legal, and administrative costs required for developing and updating the SDC, the methodology, resolution, and capital improvements master plan; administration of credit applications and apportionment; and the costs of collecting SDC's and accounting for SDC receipts and expenditures. Section 9. INVESTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SDC FUND REVENUE. (A) Any funds on deposit in Transportation SDC Fund that is not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested by the County. (B) All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the appropriate SDC trust fund and used as provided herein. Section 10. ANNUAL ACCOUNTING REPORTS. The Director shall prepare an annual report accounting for SDC funds received, including the total amount of SDC improvement fee revenue collected in each fund, and expenditures. Section 11. CHALLENGE OF EXPENDITURES. (A) Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. (B) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the County, to the Department for review within two years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the following information: (1) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the expenditure; (2) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date on which it was made; and (3) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged. (C) If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance with the provisions of this resolution and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of SDC fund revenues from other funds shall be made within one year following the determination that the expenditure was not appropriate. Page 9 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) (D) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure review to the citizen or other interested person who requested the review within ten days of completion of the review. Section 12. APPEALS AND REVIEW HEARINGS. (A) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to request a hearing to review the denial of any of the following: (1) A land -use category and/or seasonal/cyclical variations used to determine the SDC amount pursuant to Section 4. (2) An alternative rate calculation pursuant to Section 4(D). (3) A proposed credit for contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section 7. (B) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within thirty (30) days of the date of first receipt of the Director's decision. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided shall be deemed a waiver of such right. (C) The request for hearing shall be filed with the Director and shall contain the following: (1) The name and address of the applicant; (2) The legal description of the property in question; (3) If issued, the date the building permit or development permit was issued; (4) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken pursuant to the building permit or development permit; (5) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and (6) A statement of the reasons why the applicant is requesting the hearing. (D) Upon receipt of such request, the County shall schedule a hearing before the Board of Commissioners at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose of conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of the time and place of the hearing. Such hearing shall be held within forty-five (45) days of the date the request for hearing was filed. (E) Such hearing shall be before the Board of Commissioners and shall be conducted in a manner designed to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing. Formal rules of civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the hearing shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner with each party having an opportunity to be heard and to present information and evidence. Section 13. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause, the remaining portion of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated herein. Section 14. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. The SDC established by this resolution shall first apply to building permits for which a building permit application is accepted by the County as complete on and after October 1, 2008. Page 10 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) DATED thiv?� day of , 2008. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Page 11 of 11 — Resolution 2008-059 (07/23/08) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFDESCHU S COUNTY, OREGON DE IS R. L , C air EXHIBIT "A" CONSULTING SERVICES PROVIDED BY: *00, FCS GROUP Solutions -Oriented Consulting Redmond Town Center 7525 166th Avenue NE, Suite D-2.15 Redmond, WA 98052 T: 425.867.1802 F: 425-867-1937 This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials, including the bronze wire binding and the front and back cover, which are made from post -consumer recycled plastic bottles. Deschutes County Oregon Draft Report for TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STUDY March 2008 Document Reproduces Poorly vwvw.fcsgroup.com Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study Table of Contents Section Description Page I. Introduction / Background 1 II. System Development Charge Methodology 2 III. SDC Calculation 6 Stakeholders Advisory Committee Meeting Summaries Appendix A Technical Analysis Appendix B SDC Presentation Appendix C ,:;, PCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 1008 I. Introduction / Background In July 2007, Deschutes County contracted with Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. (FCS GROUP), and its subconsultant DKS Associates, to perform a transportation system development charge (SDC). Deschutes County is a growing county experiencing increasing demands on its transportation infrastructure. The County's latest transportation system plan identified a number of improvements that are needed to meet the needs of growth over the next twenty years. With the study, the County wished to implement an equitable, adequate, and defensible transportation SDC that would generate funding to meet the needs of growth without unduly burdening existing residents and business owners. Consistent with these objectives, the following general approach was used to calculate the County's transportation SDC: ■ Assist with the Public Process. In this step, we worked with a Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) to present and explain, as well as solicit input on, the proposed charges and the policy recommendations behind them. Summaries .of the Committee meetings are included as Appendix A. ■ Conduct Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of County staff and the project engineer, to finalize the SDC project list, forecast demand growth in the service area, discuss policy options and recommendations, isolate the recoverable portion of existing and planned facility costs, and calculate proposed fees. The technical analysis is included as Appendix B. ■ Assemble Documentation and Presentation. In this step, we wrote the report describing the recommended policies and resulting charges, and drafted adopting ordinances / resolutions. The SDC presentation packet is included as Appendix C. •:;1► FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 II. System Development Charge Methodology A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed on new development (and some types of re -development) at the time of development. The fee is intended to recover a fair share of the costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297 - 223.314 defines SDCs and specifies how they shall be calculated, applied, and accounted for. By statute, a SDC is the sum of two components: a reimbursement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements already constructed or under construction, and • an improvement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed in the future. The reimbursement fee methodology must be based on "the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of the existing facilities", and must further consider prior contributions by existing users and gifted and grant -funded facilities. The calculation must also "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." Reimbursement fee proceeds may be spent on any capital improvements related to the systems for which the SDC applied — e.g., transportation SDCs must be spent on transportation improvements. The improvement fee methodology must include only the cost of projected capital improvements or portions of improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words, the cost(s) of planned projects or portions of projects that correct existing deficiencies, or do not otherwise increase capacity for future users, may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. Improvement fee proceeds may be spent only on capital improvements, or portions thereof, which increase the capacity of the systems for which they were applied. A. Reimbursement Fee Methodology The calculation of the reimbursement fee, described in detail in Section III, is fairly straightforward under the approach taken. In short, it is the dollar cost of unused, available, system capacity divided by the capacity it will serve. The unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the fee. In addition to the cost or value of the system, Oregon law (ORS 223.304) requires that the reimbursement fee methodology also incorporate the following: • "Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements", taken to mean that the fees must be calculated to equitably recover appropriate costs; • "Prior contributions by existing users", taken to mean that the cost of contributed assets should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis; • "Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons", taken to mean that gifted or grant -funded assets should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis; and • "Other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee". Finally, the methodology must promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities. 2 -*-'-.),FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 Construction of the County's existing transportation system has been funded largely from contributions and general tax sources such as property taxes and state gas taxes. Contributed assets clearly may not be included in the fee basis. Regarding general tax sources, the owner of a developing property can effectively argue that they have already paid for a share of the existing system through the taxes they have paid over time. Accordingly, asset costs funded by either of these sources should not be included in a reimbursement fee cost basis. Conversely, a strong argument can be made that the cost of assets funded by previously paid SDC improvement fees provides a valid reimbursement fee cost basis. If previously paid charges have funded facilities that still have unused capacity available for growth, then the cost of that capacity may be included in the cost basis for new customers to pay for a full share of the capacity that will serve them. Therefore, we recommend that the County forego consideration of a reimbursement fee until such time that it has unused capacity in facilities funded by previously paid improvement fees. B. Improvement Fee Methodology The improvement fee calculation, like that of the reimbursement fee, is straightforward. in short, it is the eligible dollar cost of capacity -increasing capital projects divided by the capacity they will serve. Again, the unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the fee. The overriding issue to consider in the improvement fee calculation is the identification and separation of capacity - increasing capital costs. We recommend that the County utilize the "capacity" method to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under the capacity approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth proportionately by the capacity made available for growth. As an example, assume we are allocating the $1 million cost of adding a lane to an existing road to meet existing demand as well as the needs of growth. If the new lane provides capacity for 500 trips and 200 meet an existing deficiency and 300 are for growth, then the allocation to the improvement fee basis would be 300 / 500 = 60% of $1 million, or $600,000. C. Calculation Summary In general, a SDC is calculated by adding the applicable reimbursement fee component to the applicable improvement fee component. Each separate component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the appropriate measure of growth in capacity. The unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the charge. A sample calculation is shown below. Reimbursement Fee r Improvement Fee SDC Eligible cost Eligible cost of planned of capacity in capacity -increasing existing facilities + capital improvements = SDC ($ / unit) Growth in system Growth in system capacity demand capacity demand 3 '+-> FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 D. SDC (Improvement Fee) Credits The law requires that credits be provided against the improvement fee, for the construction of qualified public improvements. Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that, at a minimum, credits be provided against the improvement fee for "the construction of a qualified public improvement. A `qualified public improvement' means a capital improvement that is required as a condition of development approval, identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either: (a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or (b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related." The law further states that credits "may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the local government's minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development project or property." The challenge is to craft a credit approach that meets statutory requirements and the County's assumed general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of capital projects, and orderly but sustained development. It must be noted that we believe it is important for the County to retain as much control as possible over the prioritization and implementation of its capital plan(s). These plans are created to address total system needs — not just the needs of growth. Without control over how and when those needs are addressed, the re -prioritization of projects over time can leave important County needs unmet. To avoid this outcome, credits should: ■ be only for the portion of the actual, estimated, or agreed-upon cost of capacity in excess of that needed to serve the particular development; ■ provide cash redemption of credits only from SDCs paid by subsequent development on the site; ■ be for planned projects only; and ■ be provided only upon completion of a "qualified public improvement". We further recommend that cash redemption of credits be allowed for improvements that are not on the SDC project list, provided that they meet certain conditions. To be eligible for cash reimbursement, such improvements should: ■ be required as a condition of development approval; ■ provide additional capacity beyond the build -out demand of the proposed development; ■ be limited to the oversizing portion of the improvement cost, up to the total of improvement fees to be paid in the sole recovery area; and ■ be provided only after the improvement is added to the SDC project list. Cash redemption of credits for projects not on the SDC project list would be provided only from SDCs paid by subsequent development in the sole recovery area. The policy is provided in Exhibit A to Meeting Summary #4 in Appendix A. 4 ;:;> FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 E. Indexing Charge for Inflation Oregon law (ORS 223.304) allows for the periodic indexing of system development charges for inflation, as long as the index used is "(A) A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time period for materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three; (B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and (C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate ordinance, resolution or order." We propose that Deschutes County index its charges to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the City of Seattle, and adjust the charges annually as per that index. There is no comparable Oregon -specific index. F. Policy Review The County requested a review of four important SDC policies: SDC credits, Measure 37 claims, development of destination resorts, and area -specific transportation charges. These issues and our recommendations are summarized below: 5 -§:> FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 Issue Preliminary Recommendation 1. SDC Credits SDC credits must be provided when developers construct See section E above. qualified improvements that add system capacity (in excess of that needed by the development). What is a reasonable SDC credit policy that meets statutory requirements as well as the County's general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of capital projects, and orderly but sustained development? 2. Response to Measure 37 Claims Measure 37 essentially requires the County to compensate "Measure 37"developments would be required to make "local' property owners for the reduced market value of their land improvements and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity. due to regulations, or waive the regulations to allow the Therefore, while these developments, should they occur, could impact development to occur. This may have obvious effects on long-term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they would infrastructure needs. How does the enactment of Measure 37 adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the relate to the County's transportation SDC? combined effect of the local improvements they would construct and the share of system capacity they would pay for through the SDC. 3. Destination Resorts Central Oregon is the site of several destination resorts, and it The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their is expected that a number of similar resorts will locate in immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. A Deschutes County. What is the best approach for recovering new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in order the cost of providing transportation capacity to destination to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it. resorts that were not planned at the time of SDC calculation? 4. Area -Specific Transportation Charges 771 Does it make sense, due to expected levels of development The generally Waal character of the service area, with regard to the SDCs, and varying infrastructure needs, to charge SDCs that vary by and the common level of service provided and to be provided, supports the geographic area within the rural County? implementation of a uniform charge throughout the rural County. III. SDC Calculation The County does not currently have a transportation SDC that is applied Countywide. However, a charge does exist for properties located south of La Pine State Recreation Road. The proposed Countywide charge is based on trip generation statistics provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual for each land use type and development size. We recommend that the Countywide charge be assessed on the same basis as that of the La Pine charge: peak -hour trips (P-HTs) generated by development. Peak -hour trips are defined as the average trip rate during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic — which usually coincides with the traditional commuting peak periods of 7 am to 9 am or 4 pm to 6 pm. Transportation engineers commonly use peak -hour trip estimates to assess transportation performance and determine system needs. Average daily trips, as measures of total traffic volume, are not generally used to size a system. 6 -:;> FCS CROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 Also, there is documentation presented in the ITE Trip Generation manual that a significant percentage of trip ends associated with specific land uses are a result of linked, or pass -by, trips. Accordingly, the proposed charges are adjusted for pass -by trips — as shown at the end of this section. The calculation of the proposed Countywide transportation SDC is summarized below and provided in detail in Appendix B. A. Capacity Basis In order to estimate the number of peak -hour trips to be generated by growth over the planning period (ending in 2027) — the denominator in both the reimbursement and improvement fee calculations — the following approach was taken. • Utilizing 2007 development records, County staff reported the number of dwelling units within the unincorporated County. Based on ITE peak -hour trip rates for single-family residences, multi -family dwellings, and destination resorts, total trip generation for the unincorporated County was estimated to be 27,857 P.M. peak -hour trips in 2007. • The Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast reported an unincorporated County population of 53,032 in 2000 and projected a 2025 unincorporated population of 81,951. Assuming a constant annual growth rate of 2.2%, the 2007 unincorporated population was estimated to be 55,391 and the 2027 unincorporated population was projected to be 85,596. • Next, the 2007 peak -hour trip estimate of 27,857 was grown proportionately with the projected population growth from 55,391 to 85,596. Accordingly, total P.M. peak -hour trips in 2027 were projected to be 43,047. • Therefore, during the 2007-2027 study period, new development within the unincorporated County was expected to generate 15,191 P.M. peak -hour trips. B. Reimbursement Fee Calculation As stated previously, we recommend no initial reimbursement fee. However, as the County constructs transportation improvements with SDC proceeds, we recommend that it appropriately add these projects to the reimbursement fee cost basis. The County should promptly charge a reimbursement fee based on the remaining unused capacity provided by these SDC -funded improvements. C. Improvement Fee Calculation The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity -increasing capital improvements for inclusion in the improvement fee cost basis. • The County's 2008 SDC Project List provided a list of needed capital projects. The sum of this list of project costs in current dollars was $279,490,589. • Next, a number of allocation alternatives were considered. Each alternative was based on a different allocation approach for the seven project categories: intersection improvements, State highway improvements, new road segments, existing road improvements, federal forest highway improvements, pedestrian and bike improvements, and bridge improvements or t.> KS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 reconstruction. The allocation alternatives ranged from allocating almost 100% of project costs to the improvement fee cost basis to allocating an average of 19% of project costs to the SDC (based on projected growth in trip volumes). After review and discussion, it was determined that the volume growth approach was the most appropriate for allocating SDC -eligible costs. Under this approach, project costs were allocated to growth to the extent that each improvement added capacity for future users. First, projects that did not provide capacity for future users were assigned a growth allocation of 0%. Next, projects that created capacity that would serve existing and future users equally were assigned a growth allocation of 35.3% — equivalent to growth's share of the future peak -hour trip total. Those projects that served only growth were allocated 100% to the improvement fee cost basis. Finally, State project costs were assigned a growth allocation of approximately 5.3%, which represented growth's proportionate share of the County's 15% funding target. The resulting total of eligible costs became the improvement fee cost basis: $53,225,053. Based on forecasted growth of 15,191 P.M. peak -hour trips, the resulting improvement fee was $3,504 per peak -hour trip. D. Recommended System Development Charge The recommended transportation SDC of $3,549 per peak -hour trip is the sum of the reimbursement fee and the improvement fee, adjusted by an administrative cost recovery factor of 1.28%, or $45. At this time, there is no reimbursement fee component to the recommended charge. The administrative cost recovery factor was derived by dividing projected annual SDC accounting and administrative costs, including the amortized cost of this study, by forecasted annual SDC revenues. The resulting recommended SDCs for a comprehensive list of land uses are provided below. •:;> FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 ITE Customer Type Land Use Description Peak -Hour Trips Pass -By Trip Adjusted P H To SDC Units Code Factor General Light Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single use. Examples: 110 Printing plants, material testing laboratories, data processing equipment 0.98 1 0.98 $ 3,478 KSF Industrial assembly, ower stations. 130 Industrial Park Industrial Park areas that contain a number of industrial and/or related 0.86 1 0.86 $ 3,052 KSF facilities mix of manufacturing. service and warehouse). 140 Manufacturing Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products. Typically have 0.74 1 0.74 $ 2,626 KSF related office warehouse research and associated functions. Storage Units or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physically 161 Mini -Warehouse separate and access through an overhead door or other common access point. 0.26 1 0.26 $ 923 KSF Example: -Store-It. 210 SF Detached Single family detached housing. 1.01 1 1.01 $ 3,584 DU 220 Apartment Rental Dwelling Units within the same building. At least 4 units in the same 0.62 1 0.62 $ 2,200 DU bulldlnll. Examples: Quad loxes and all es of apartment buildin s. 230 Condofrownhouse Residential Condominium/Townhouses under single-family ownership. 0.52 1 0.52 $ 1,845 DU Minimum of two single Tamil units in the same buildingstructure. Trailers or Manufactured homes that are sited on permanent foundations. Occupied 240 Mobile Home Typically the parks have community facilities (laundry, recreation rooms, 0.59 1 0.59 $ 2,094 DU pools). Restricted to senior citizens. Contains residential units similar to apartments Occupied 253 Elderly Housing or condos. Sometimes In self-contained villages. May also contain medical 0.17 1 0.17 $ 603 DU facilities dining,and o limited suoportIng retail. 310 Hotel Lodging facility that may Include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, and/or 0.59 1 0.59 $ 2,094 Room convention facilities. Can Include a large motel with these facilities. 320 Motel Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free on-site parking and 0.47 1 0.47 $ 1,668 Room little or no meeting space. County -owned parks, varying widely as to location, type, and number of 411 ' Local Park facilities, including boating / swimming facilities, ball fields, and picnic facilities. 0.09 1 0.09 $ 319 Acres Regional park authority -owned parks, varying widely as to location, type, and 417 Regional Park number of facilities, Including trails, lakes, pools, ball fields, camp / picnic 0.2 1 0.2 $ 710 Acres facilities and general offices ace. Includes 9, 18, 27, and 36 hole municipal and private country dubs. Some 430 Gotf Course have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro shops, restaurants, lounges. 2.74 1 2.74 $ 9,724 Holes Many of the muni courses do not Include such facilities. Multipurpose Multi-purpose recreational facilities contain two or more of the following land 436 uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go- 5.77 1 5.77 $ 20,478 Acres Recreation Facility carts and driving ranges. 437 Bowling Alley Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may Include a small lounge, 3.54 1 3.54 $ 12,563 Lanes restaurant or snack bar. Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities often Including swimming 493 Athletic Club pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash, and handball courts. 5.76 1 5.76 $ 20,442 KSF Recreational community centers are facilities similar to and including YMCAs, 486 Recreational often including classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming pools, tennis 1'64 1 1.64 $ 5,820 KSF Community Center racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker rooms, & food service. 620 • Elementary School Public. Typically serves K-6 grades. 0.28 1 0.28 $ 994 Student 622 Middle School Public. Serves students that completed elementary and have not yet entered 0.15 1 0.15 $ 532 Student high school. 630 High School Public. Serves students that completed middle or junior high school. 0.14 1 0.14 $ 497 Student 640 Junior/Community Two-yearjuniorcolleges or community colleges. 0.12 1 0.12 $ 426 Student College 660 Church Contains worship area and may Include meeting rooms classrooms, dining 0.66 1 0.66 $ 2,342 KSF 666 • Day Care Facility for pre-school children care primarily during daytime hours. May 13.18 0.33 4.35 $ 15,438 KSF Include classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds. 0.82 0.33 0.27 $ 958 Student 690 Library Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or areas, 7.09 1 7.09 $ 25,162 KSF sometimes meetin rooms. 681 Lodga/Fratemal Includes a club house with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and 0.03 1 0.03 $ 108 Members Organization entertainment areas and meetin rooms. Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can include 710 General Office professional services, bank and Loan Institutions, restaurants, snack bars, and 1.49 1 1.49 $ 5,288 KSF service retail facilities. Single Tenant Office Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices, meeting rooms, file 716 storage areas, data processing, restaurant or cafeteria, and other service 1.73 1 1.73 $ 6,140 KSF Building functions. 720 Medical -Dental Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically operated 3.72 1 3.72 $ 13,202 KSF Office by one or more private physicians or dentists. Park or campus -like planned unit development that contains office buildings 750 Office Park and support services such as banks & loan institutions, restaurants, service 1.5 1 1.5 $ 5,324 KSF stations. •:;> FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study March 2008 ITE PeakHour Pass-By Adjusted Code Customer Type Land Use Description Trips Trip P -H Ts SDC Units Factor Research & Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research & development. 780 Development Center May contain offices and light fabrication facilities. 1.08 1 1.08 $ 3,833 KSF Group of flex -type or Incubator 1 - 2 story buildings served by a common 770 Business Park roadway system. Tenant space is flexible to accommodate a variety of uses. 1.29 1 1.29 $ 4,578 KSF Rear of building usually served by a garage door. Typically Incudes a mix of offices. retail & wholesale. Building Materials & Small, free standing building that sells hardware, building materials, and 812 Lumber lumber. May Include yard storage and shed storage areas. The storage areas 4.49 1 4.49 $ 15,935 KSF are not Included in the GLA needed for trip neneration estimates. 813 Discount Super A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery dept. 3.87 0.718 2.78 $ 9,866 KSF Store under one root. Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops that typically 814 Specialty Retail specialize in apparel, hard goods, serves such as real estate, investment, 2.71 1 2.71 $ 9,618 KSF dance studios florists and small restaurants. A free-standing discount store that offers a variety of customer services, 816 Discount Store centralized cashiering, and a wide range of products under one roof. Does not 5.06 0.475 2.4 $ 8,518 KSF include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-standing Discount Superstore. 916 Hardware/Paint Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell paints and 4.84 0.450 2.18 $ 7,737 KSF Store hardware. Free-standing building with yard containing planting or landscape stock. May 817 Nursery/Garden have large green houses and offer landscape services. Typically have office, 3.8 1 3.8 $ 13,486 KSF Center storage, and shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not yard and storage GLA. I Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Provides enough on-site parking to serve its KSF 820 Shopping Center own parking demand. May include non -merchandising facilities such as office 3.75 0.393 1.47 $ 5,217 Leasable buildings, movie theatres, restaurants, post offices, health cubs, and recreation like skatina rinks and amusements. . 1 841 New Car Sales New Car dealership with sales service parts, and used vehicles 2.64 1 2.64 $ 9,369 KSF 848 Tire Store Primary business Is tire sales and repair. Generally does not have a large 4.15 1 4.15 $ 14,728 KSF storacie or warehouse area. 850 Supermarket Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo centers, 10.45 0.265 2.76 $ 9,795 KSF Pharmacies, video rental areas. 651 Convenience Market Sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often Beer & Wine. 52.41 0.282 14.8 $ 52,525 KSF Does not have gas pumps. 680 Pharmacy w/o drive Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions g,q2 0.327 2.75 $ 9,760 KSF throw h 681 Pharmacy w/ drive Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions 8.62 0.383 3.3 $ 11,712 KSF throw h 890 IFumiture Store Sells furniture, accessories, and often carpet/floor coverings. 0.46 0.157 0.07 $ 248 KSF 911 • Walk -In Bank Usually a Free-standing building with a parking lot. Does not have drive -up 33.15 0.270 8.95 $ 31,764 KSF windows. May have ATMs. 912 Drive -In Bank Provides Drive -up and walk -In bank services. May have ATMs. 45.74 0.270 12.35 $ 43,830 KSF 931 Quality Restaurant High quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates (more than one 7.49 0.288 2.15 $ 7,630 KSF hour. 932 High Turnover Sit- Sit -Down eating establishment with turnover rates of less than one hour. 10.92 0.315 3.44 $ 12,209 KSF Down Rest. 933 • FastFood w/o Drive- Fast Food but no drive-through windowThr 28,15 0.285 6.94 $ 24,830 KSF i 934 Fast Food With Fast Food with drive-through window 34.64 0.265 9.2 $ 32,651 KSF Drive-Thru 936 • Drinking Place Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are serviced and 11,34 0.315 3.58 $ 12,706 KSF Possibly some type of entertainment such as music ames or pool tables 944 Gas Station Sell gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Does not have 13.86 0.235 3.28 $ 11,870 Fueling Convenience Market end/or Car Wash. Positions Gas/Service Station Selling gas and Convenience Market are the primary business. May also 945 with Convenience contain facilities for service and repair. Does not include Car Wash. 13.38 0.123 1.65 $ 5,856 Fueling Market Positions Gas/Service Station Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the primary business. 946 • with Convenience May also contain facilities for service and repair. 13.33 0.382 5.09 $ 18,064 Fueling Market, Car Wash Positions 947 Self-service Car Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for the driver to park 5.54 1 5.54 $ 19,661 Wash Wash and wash. Stalls NOTES: Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Peak -Hour Trips: Weekday, peak -hour of adjacent street traffic. Most often, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. Pass -By Trip Factor reflects diverted linked trips in addition to pass -by trips. ITE codes identified with asterisks (•) include information derived from the ITE manual (e.g., pass -by factor is derived from pass -by counts for a similar land use or are as estimated by traffic engineers). Land Use Units: KSF =1,000 gross square feet building area DU = dwelling unit Room = number of rooms for rent Fueling Positions = maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously } Student = number of full-time equivalent students enrolled 10 -:;) FCS GR1-1up Appendix A Stakeholders Advisory Committee Meeting Summaries Appendix A $-01 FCS GROUP Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study Stakeholders Advisory Committee Summary of Meeting #1 On November 27th, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its first meeting. The following were in attendance: Name Representing Andy High Central Oregon Builders Association Steve Hultberg Ball Janik LLP Erik Kancler Central Oregon Land Watch Bill Robie Central Oregon Association of Realtors Conrad Ruel South County Kirk Schueler Brooks Resources Todd Taylor Knife River Tom Blust Deschutes County John Ghilarducci FCS GROUP The meeting began with introductions. The consultant then reviewed the proposed meeting agenda, and summarized the project scope and schedule. The Committee agreed to meet in December in order to expedite completion of the study, and set the date and time of the next meeting -- December 18 from 3 to 5 pm. The consultant then provided a presentation on SDC Basics. There were questions and discussion throughout the presentation, which segued into a review of several specific policy issues which had been identified and summarized in advance of the meeting. These issues are listed below, with comments stating the general input of the Committee. a Appropriateness of the reimbursement fee. Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a combination of tax sources and other "general" funds, the consultant proposed that the County should forego charging a reimbursement fee as part of its initial transportation SDC. The Committee generally agreed, but suggested that a reimbursement fee methodology, or formula, be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the County to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee. SDC Credits. The consultant summarized the minimum legal requirements for SDC credits, as well as some practices that exceed minimum requirements but may still provide adequate protection for the County's financial health. The Committee generally agreed that it was in both the County's and the developer's interests to allow for cash redemption of SDC credits by a developer. However, there remained some question as to whether that cash reimbursement should be limited to SDCs subsequently paid by building on the development site, or whether the SDC fund could be used in special circumstances to cash reimburse SDC ♦o� FCS GINIV V 1 Page 1 Solutions -Oriented Consulting Deschutes County Meeting Summary credits. Such a special circumstance could occur when a developer constructed a qualified public improvement but could not reasonably expect to recover the over -sizing cost of that improvement from subsequent development if limited to the development site. The consultant offered to develop a proposed approach that might meet these interests. 2. Measure 37 Claims. This issue revolved around the potential impact of unplanned development on transportation infrastructure needs and, as a result, SDCs. The Committee generally agreed with the consultant and County staff that in the case of "Measure 37"development, those developments would still be required to make "local" improvements and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity. Therefore, while these developments, should they occur, could impact long-term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they would adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the combined effect of the local improvements they would construct and the share of system capacity they would pay for through the SDC. 3. Destination Resorts. The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. It was generally understood and agreed that a new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in order to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it. 4. Area -specific Charges. There was initial agreement that a uniform charge would be preferred for the rural County, but it was also agreed that the Committee should review both the project list and recent growth patterns to ensure that such an approach would not be inequitable. The next meeting will include follow-up discussion of these issues, as well as a review of preliminary SDC calculations, and the alternative methods of approaching the improvement fee allocation and subsequent calculation. The consultant also agreed to bring trip generation estimates for a number of different land uses, including hotels. PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 F:\Deschutes County\Documentaton\Report\5-Meeting Summary #1.doc Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study Stakeholders Advisory Committee Summary of Meeting #2 On December 18ffi, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its second meeting. The following were in attendance: Name Representing Andy High Central Oregon Builders Association Steve Hultberg Ball Janik LLP Erik Kancler Central Oregon Land Watch Bill Robie Central Oregon Association of Realtors Conrad Ruel South County Kirk Schueler Brooks Resources Tom Blust Deschutes County Peter Russell Deschutes County Carl Springer DKS Associates John Ghilarducci FCS GROUP The consultant presented the proposed meeting agenda, and reviewed the meeting summary from meeting #1. In the course of that discussion, the Committee revisited the issue of providing credits for system improvements that have not been included on the SDC project list. While not required, it has been generally agreed that the practice of providing SDC credits for projects not on the list may be warranted if the County's cash position can be protected. The initial recommendation had been that credits be provided only for the construction of system improvements that have been included on the project list. It was also recommended that cash reimbursement of those credits be allowed only from SDC receipts generated by subsequent building permitted on the development site. The consultant suggested that credits for projects not on the list could be provided without detriment to the County cash position if the project, once initiated, was put on the list and subsequent SDCs paid by development on the site were used to cash out. credits earned by the initial developer. Ideally, the SDC would be updated at the time the new project was known, so that the SDCs charged would reflect that new cost. Allowing transferability of credits, or cash reimbursement from SDCs generated elsewhere in the County would put County cash receipts at risk and is not recommended. As an example, if a developer constructs a roundabout (e.g, the Calderra Springs Roundabout), and it is agreed that the roundabout is a qualified system improvement except for the fact that it is not on the project list, then under the suggested policy the County would credit the developer with the oversizing portion of that project cost (say, $250,000 of a $750,000 project). The project would then be added to the project list, and the SDCs adjusted commensurately. As `4`#+FCS G11(V1 Solutions -Oriented Consulting Page 1 Deschutes County Meeting Summary building permits are issued for development in Calderra Springs, the SDCs paid would be used to cash redeem the credits issued to the initial developer who constructed the roundabout until $250,000 is recovered. The County would not use other SDC funds generated to redeem developer credits associated with the roundabout. The consultant then presented the initial technical analysis, including a trip growth forecast used in the calculation, and several alternative approaches to allocating planned project cost to growth by project type (i.e., bridges, new roads, State projects, etc.). The Committee generally agreed that the method used to forecast trip growth (proportional with population growth) was reasonable, and is considering the cost estimates and the calculated SDC alternatives. There was a question about how the project costs on the list were determined. Staff agreed to review the project costs to ensure that those costs are reasonable and accurate given the planning level of detail used. The next meeting, scheduled for January 15th at 3 pm, will include follow-up discussion of these issues and the technical analysis. PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 F:\Deschutes County\Documentation\Report\6-Meeting Summary #2.doc Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study Stakeholders Advisory Committee Summary of Meeting #3 On January 15th, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its third meeting. The following were in attendance: Name Representing Andy High Central Oregon Builders Association Steve Hultberg Ball Janik LLP Erik Kancler Central Oregon Land Watch Bill Robie Central Oregon Association of Realtors Conrad Ruel South County Kirk Schueler Brooks Resources Todd Taylor Knife River Tom Blust Deschutes County John Ghilarducci FCS GROUP The consultant presented the proposed meeting agenda, and reviewed the meeting summary from meeting #2. In the course of that discussion, the Committee again revisited the issue of providing credits for system improvements that have not been included on the SDC project list. It has been generally agreed that the practice of providing SDC credits for projects not on the list may be warranted if the County's cash position can be protected. The consultant paraphrased his updated proposal that credits for projects not on the list could be provided without detriment to the County cash position if SDCs paid by subsequent development on the site were used to cash out the credits earned by the initial developer. Ideally, the SDC would be updated at the time the new project was known, so that the SDCs charged would reflect that new cost. It was suggested that the County could offer cash reimbursement from its general SDC fund balance if limited to a percentage of that fund. The City of Bend uses a formula approach to establish the amount, as a percentage, that is paid out in credit redemptions from the SDC fund. Another approach would be to provide criteria for the County to use to determine whether an improvement not on the list would qualify for an SDC credit and then subsequent cash redemption. Such criteria could include that the project must provide agreed-upon excess capacity that will provide system benefit but will exceed the ability of the "recovery area" to generate subsequent SDCs for cash repayment of that oversizing cost to the initial developer. Steve Hultberg offered to draft some policy language on this issue for discussion by the Committee. Next, Tom Blust briefed the Committee on the updates County staff made to the project list, resulting in a reduction to the total of approximately $25 million. During the course of the project list discussion, and the presentation of draft findings that followed, the Committee FCS G1%).0"UP Solutions -Oriented Consulting Page 1 Deschutes County Meeting Summary expressed concern about the gap between what would be funded by SDCs and the total cost (County share) of the project list. The County is obligated to address this gap, estimated to be as high as $60.5 million after deducting the State's anticipated share of State projects, using sources other than SDC improvement fees, which may be spent only on capacity -increasing project costs. The consultant noted that as the County constructs projects on the project list, it will establish a basis for an SDC reimbursement fee. Reimbursement fee proceeds may be spent on the gap. Their use is not restricted to capacity -increasing project costs. The Committee generally favored the affirmation that adoption of an SDC program carries with it an obligation on the part of the County to meet the funding gap through other sources. There was also much discussion on the allocation of State projects to the SDC basis. Improvement fee alternatives 3 and 4 (4 is the recommended option) both include an allocation of 15% of State projects to the SDC basis. This is effectively 100% of the anticipated County share of these project costs. Assuming that the growth -related portion of each State project is greater than 15%, then this approach effectively allocates the benefit of State funding to existing County residents, and defines the full County share (anticipated to be 151/o) of each State project as part of the growth share of that project. An alternative approach, generally supported by the Committee, would be to define the likely County share of each State project, in this case 15% of each project cost, and then share the burden of funding that local share between existing residents and growth. County staff agreed to review each State project and determine an appropriate allocation between existing County and new development. The project team also agreed to research comparable transportation SDCs for counties. The information provided in the presentation packet included only nearby cities. The next meeting, yet to be scheduled, will include follow-up discussion of these issues and the technical analysis. It is anticipated that the next meeting will be the last meeting of the Committee. PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 F:\Deschutes County\Documentabon\Report\7-Meeting Summary #3.doc Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Study Stakeholders Advisory Committee Summary of Meeting #4 On March 0, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its fourth meeting. The following were in attendance: Name Representing Andy High Central Oregon Builders Association Steve Hultberg Ball Janik LLP Bill Robie Central Oregon Association of Realtors Conrad Ruel South County Tom Blust Deschutes County Peter Russell Deschutes County John Ghilarducci FCS GROUP The consultant presented the proposed meeting agenda, and reviewed the meeting summary from meeting #3. The meeting summary was accepted as written. The first topic of discussion was the proposed SDC credit policy, and the related policy for cash redemption of credits. The committee reviewed and discussed language proposed by committee member Steve Hultberg. Some minor revisions / clarifications were suggested, but in general, the proposed language was received positively by the group. The proposed credit policy, incorporating the suggested revisions is provided as Exhibit A. Please review and comment as appropriate. Next, the consultant summarized the policy issues that have been discussed with the committee to date, and confirmed the committee's recommendations on each issue. The matrix of issues and recommendations (excluding the credit recommendation in Exhibit A), is provided as Exhibit B. After concurring on the issues summary, the committee discussed a suggestion related to the timing of SDC collection. It was proposed that the County collect the SDC as a condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C of 0). It is the understanding of the committee that after April 1, 2008 a C of 0 will be required of all new development in the state, and it was thought that issuance of the certificate would better approximate the time of actual additional demand for system capacity. The committee agreed with this recommendation, subject to the County's ability to efficiently administer such a policy. County staff next summarized the input of the State of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the State projects on the project list, and the County's proposed allocation of those project costs to growth and, consequently, the system development charge. Briefly, ODOT ♦�± FCS �.31LV Up Page 1 Solutions -Oriented Consuiting Deschutes County Meeting Summary recommended that several additional projects be included on the project list, and provided updated cost information for the projects that were already on the list. ODOT further recommended that the County increase the percentage of State projects allocated to the SDC. The committee considered this input, but did not concur with the ODOT recommendations about increasing the allocation from previous alternatives. Finally, the committee considered the updated SDC analysis, focusing the discussion on four alternatives. 1. The first alternative included the expanded list of projects, based on ODOT's longer list, and allocated the full 15% County share to the SDC basis. The result of this first alternative was an SDC of $6,318 per peak -hour trip. 2. The second alternative again included the expanded list of projects, but allocated only a proportional share (about 35%) of the 15% County share of State projects to the SDC basis. Philosophically, this approach shares the burden of meeting the County cost share between existing County residents and growth. The result of this second alternative was an SDC of $4,131 per peak -hour trip. 3. The third alternative included only those projects previously identified as State projects, but with their updated costs, and allocated the full 15% County share to the SDC basis. The result of this third alternative was an SDC of $4,667 per peak -hour trip. j 4. The fourth alternative again included only those projects previously identified as State projects, with their updated costs, and allocated only a proportional share (again about 351/0) of the 15% County share of State projects to the SDC basis. The result of this fourth alternative was an SDC of $3,549 per peak -hour trip. The committee agreed on the fourth alternative as the recommended SDC. County staff agreed that the original list of State projects represented the highest priority projects from the perspective of the County. In addition, those projects had been reported in the County transportation system plan (TSP). The additional projects that ODOT proposed had not been included in the TSP. In addition, the committee agreed that the County cost share of State projects would be most appropriately shared between current County residents and growth. The comment was made that presentation materials should focus on the charge to a single family residence, because that number will be seen far more often than the charge per peak -hour trip. The consultant agreed to emphasize the charge per single family residence. County staff and the consultant thanked committee members for their participation and briefly reviewed the schedule for remaining tasks and meetings with the County Board of Commissioners, inviting committee members to attend any and all meetings to the extent that they can. There is a Board work session scheduled for March 260i, and a public hearing scheduled for May 2e. There will be no further meetings of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee. PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2 F:\Deschutes County0ocumentabonWleetng Summary #4.doc Exhibit A MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County SDC Stakeholders Advisory Committee FROM: Steven Hultberg DATE: February 28, 2008 CLIENT: RE: Proposals for SDC Ordinance The purpose of the recommendation below is to deal with a situation where i) a property owner is required to construct an improvement as a condition of approval, ii) the improvement creates capacity above and beyond the impacts of the approved development; and iii) the improvement is not on the County's CIP, and is thus not eligible for SDC credits. In general, the proposal would allow the property owner to i) request that the improvement be placed on the County's CIP; ii) require the County to amend the CIP unless the amendment is not in the public interest; iii) allow the property owner to receive SDC credits for the excess capacity; and iv) limit the recovery area to the property owner's development, with no right to transfer the credits. Applicability. The following conditions would have to be met in order to request that the County amend the CIP to include the improvement. procedure: 1. The improvement is required as a condition of development approval. 2. The improvement is a system improvement that provides additional capacity above and beyond the impacts of the full build -out of the proposed development. The applicant is required to provide this analysis to the County consistent with the requirements of the SDC ordinance. 3. The improvement is not on the County's CIP. Procedure for Amending CIP. The CIP could be amended under the following 1. Applicant must file request within 30 days of final approval. (Note: Ideally the applicant would be in discussion with the county regarding the improvement prior to the approval.) 2. Applicant must provide sufficient evidence quantifying the excess capacity created by the improvement. 3. Applicant must identify sole recovery area, which is limited to the development approved by the land use approval. F \Deschutes Cotuwty\Documentation\Proposed Credit Language - Revised JG.DOCPoeume 4 conditions: 4. County mustte consider request within sixty days of application and approve request unless it determines that request would negatively impact the construction or funding of other projects on the CIP. Procedure for SDC Credits. Credits would be issued pursuant to the following 1. CIP must be amended prior to payment of SDC or issuance of credits. 2. Credits limited to the oversizing portion of the improvement cost, up to total of improvement fees to be paid in the sole recovery area. 3. Cash redemption of credits provided to applicant limited to improvement fees generated by development in the sole recovery area.Ne eash 4. All other provisions of SDC Ordinance would apply. 2F'\Deschutes County\Documentation\Proposed Credit Langiage - Revised JG DOCDeetiment� Deschutes County Transportation SDC Study preliminary Policy Issues Analysis Issue ■ Reimbursement Fee Is it appropriate to include a reimbursement fee as a component of the County's initial transportation SDC? Exhibit B Recommendation Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a combination of tax sources and other "general" funds, the County should forego charging a reimbursement fee as part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee methodology, or formula, should be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the County to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee. 1. SDC Credits I SDC credits must be provided when developers construct See Exhibit A. qualified improvements that add system capacity (in excess of I that needed by the development). What is a reasonable SDC i credit policy that meets statutory requirements as well as the E County's general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of capital projects, and orderly but sustained development? 1 2. Response to Measure 37 Claims I I Measure 37 essentially requires the County to compensate property owners for the reduced market value of their land due to regulations, or waive the regulations to allow the development to occur. This may have obvious effects on infrastructure needs. How does the enactment of Measure 37 relate to the County's transportation SDC? 3. Destination Resorts Central Oregon is the site of several destination resorts, and it is expected that a number of similar resorts will locate in Deschutes County. What is the best approach for recovering the cost of providing transportation capacity to destination resorts that were not planned at the time of SDC calculation? "Measure 37"developments would be required to make "local" improvements and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity. Therefore, while these developments, should they occur, could impact long-term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they would adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the combined effect of the local improvements they would construct and the share of system capacity they would pay for through the SDC. The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. A new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in order to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it. 4. Area -Specific Transportation Charges Does it make sense, due to expected levels of development The generally rural character of the service area, with regard to the SDCs, and varying infrastructure needs, to charge SDCs that vary by I and the common level of service provided and to be provided, supports the geographic area within the rural County? implementation of a uniform charge throughout the rural County. FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 Policy Recommendations Summary 3/13/2008 Appendix B Technical Analysis Appendix B -*..-)-FCS GROUP LL 00 0 Cl) co M O G N C c Cl) N O N D o D � co 0 U N 'a cn V G O NG G O 0LL V O s aV m r > V G y U V (D 0 Z `a H E F co LL 00 0 Cl) co M O G N C c Cl) N O N D o D � co 0 U N CCD L Q- H I- I- I- H h _ = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CL a a. aaa a a a aaa a a Q. a LO cq r 00 00 00 !f CD rn M m M M 4 W L � o T- o o q' M N LO In W) V) N C6 C. M M In EA Vk d4 Ef} f6* 0 00 N r N O O a a E) m s � cc V v U m U d U c � a. a CL v °� (1) CD �i cc c c c .r CW r=0' CE m c «O E a) � V O C 0 CA E j >y o 2 > Q M Cl) N ! U C� E = U C7 N E a� a H m ` o � F - LL 00 0 Cl) co M O G N C c Cl) N O N D o D � co 0 U N E to 00 N N N M W O F Go N to to O N O F N 0 N O O N O Y m a d m 3 CL O CL n N O N n n N .o N C N O y W o L p aci y > m O mmn c N N CLCD do N C �C9 E E a O ~ y N N 00 0 C_ n C W N 7 �- E C O E .° Q O m.0 T o a c U N O N 7 w N N N � � C O O O m co 0m -N CO 0 O f7 N a� UD UN U. .v ) � LL 9 im 2 � � coOL � z . 2 g � Q 40. # Z. . CL U � 64 _ < � � C4 � k .U. C4 U. N § o f f . R n _ _ cs \ \ k ° • % \ Cf) _ ~ K @ G V) R 7 © . V) - Q _ % @ U CD P - R R 0 ' Cl q � _ ©m ® f � $ . - C14 0 IT _ \ \ k � • K / g f § 2 . \ Cl) v _ % k 0 — § / § 7 § $ ) % 7 2 3 7 0ƒ ? m E A [ L 3 2 v 0 0 7 § / ] ƒ cc e ¥ 2- rL 2 E S § / A 2 o O !§ f Q | 0.E a ) | _ § Q m w $ Q � k k n §2 § E §\ ) § \ OD co } N V' O O O N v 0 m v 0 N et N O O It Vol O n EP m — (p — � o 64 n M OD LO� m 0) (0 m Nl 7 m N O n :LA+ LM O Lr)m N N M U) di O O a o m (CL O N N n O Oct N O V f0 L N w m LO v M N N n 0 v M U 5 C1 C)o 0 o ;e 0 3� 3� U o CL 0 O U' CL w O U O U CD 0M N N U 69 69 69 09 6% 69 vs Vi 64 to 69 69 6% d V y 0 rm O (� W m OD 1n o It n N 6Y O OD m 0 m 0) M ; m M M 0) O u) O ro 6) 01 M M 0) O OO N 04 ; m M M 0iai L O m n 69 m M M m It OD n E9 M n OD N m O n 69 0 N et N O O It Vol O W 07 v 6h d' 3 M c0 O n 00 69 m — (p — � o 64 n M OD LO� m 0) (0 m Nl 7 m N O n :LA+ LM O Lr)m N N M U) di O O O 5 � 5 C1 C)o 0 o ;e 0 3� 3� 0 o o CL 0 O U' CL w O U O U CD 0M N N N O O O O O O O O N O) m 0) 7 N 7 7 !A > > > V O � a O O co o 0 0 0 3e o o 0 0 0 m LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y m 64 b� LO N 02 3e de O O LL LON U. C 6T O O O R O E O w M * o 0 0 o O. c0 C7 5 0. O C7 O. O U' U' C 0 O O O O O H d y d O O O y 7 R Ux 7 N 7 7 > V W > W >CL > o O o of o 0 oe 3E o CA H d N Z vk Oca t� aO` d 1° U' o 0 ,o 0 N 3 W O o 67 C O � .n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lll L o 0 0 0 o C-1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 6y N M sf �t7 m n M m� c U E E E E E E E E E ~¢ a Q a a a E,E E E a a a a a a� m CL CL T 0 co 0 M Appendix C SDC Presentation Appendix C +;►FCS GROUP Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) 6 0 oho m U D U) 14 � o w N cu w U ci ja Q ho � f _ O ^ s -1:� r M C4-4 .� ON O lun Nu . M , O �1 cd y v O r"o � r 4a4 0 J p 'drA ''Cj� O cpcd 0 C O V= w c�i c�j eC nri o w cu w U ci cu Q ho � f _ O ^ s -1:� r M C4-4 .� ON O lun Nu . M , O �1 O r"o � r 4a4 0 J U o� C �J 0 C O V= w M-5 010 a umi, • Ig loc, IN ,s, 5 M-5 010 a cn .C: CCS C� u 9 E O O O � CL CU O _ O � .0 Cu -F-+0 cn cu E o 0 l 0 t� v 4-+ O ct O O C-4 C� I �--j4-J4 r ---q ;ju T CQ 4wJ v cn 4-4CNa T .. i cn o o Ir..4 7� 4-4 •� O 4J 4-4 E i z -a Z M V o Q) 41-1 M O U tilt c u wo SKY N w N M ti O M It O U w L V O D1 C O :p (6 a O CL N O N N C N O N W r_ w Ew a L a� c m 0 (D w N N N E � �..0 N a (a O N N N E •a a O ~ N � (D N N (D"O �O CLU N E C O EOa� U E Z, N 0�w U F- N � C O O 4) o=� O U U � 0 O (c6 U)U)m •- N M ,4iy G E E :3 cn -f-+ cn U 0 L n vl O O O O O O O O C� C) Ln l� N Ln N [� toOn= to40)-- to to t4 (U ' 4 N � 4-J H H C%) �0 O O � O S� blJ U U�� • N +, 4-J U o o V40 'o u .o O � \ � UO o o o V Ln O b�J O C No s-4 cn vm-U u o cn Lr) s� p 4-4 V O .O O 0 0O v 0 • ..—. r--� cn Ln O `r' O y py N �1 N C �W LD 0 r -i CD coa O Co O m 0 d O D M O V o rn N N cl W Ef} � EA CD O Co O m 0 Ln Ntt CN M Ef} bR � 0. O O O O w O U) O O 09- flIn m % O d Q, Gi G> LL. �1+ d O LL LD N M N o O O Ef} p �N o co ti c1r) 00 L CL e O O "a O ce _ N W v C to O LO M ti •- a L r -v 0 Ci 0 N N 0 O C N N Z d4 64 N 0 CL O M L6 r N 0) EA d4 e V O ` N r O \ O L N � O In In G EA r N 'L O Z c 1 O Cn Lei O r^ LO O L6 U') M U N N cu M L C) ♦ N O LL = U O v N �O � v N CU •� U. � U- C o ` — C� ♦-+ c N E >+ .�'cu O m cu A _ U _ U O `O? b w i� c0 0 4-a cu V i �D0 U C v a� 00 UJ � O J �� to 0 cn to cn to co O O O O O •y � ❑ r r r � e- W (0 V ❑ C6 N N N Cn C4 C36 ti C� v C6 w N N co (n N N L CL O r- N N O O Q d � � a O v E = U cn � a Q .� Ln O C L CL co Vi 7 i �D0 U C v a� 00 UJ � O J �� to 0 c�9 p a� a� c o ayi y d Y Y Y Y Q �QQ x w Q Q 2 O O a0 t` N N w N M N O O {) d• eP Of M O W a0 w Of r O r N 1� el' O w W H N CO O l0 O w M P Cl) M N M N r N N r 01 F � N F- a0 Q7 co W a n w N — O N O N l0 O to r- O lf) t` It m O N v t` V= Qa O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 m v LL � a7 IL = co O O oo QP fl. w N O N O N to Of LO t` a- C) LO ti '7 0 O N � n 6 C G6 r C O 6 O C C 6 O N IL C 2' O OI C G CL L O_ Q G a) p ro a d a) E U) a a E ,.yC L 7 C 7 O N �. O y tm a) •ZO. p C a y O _7 c-, y V y 4? EEo r O 2 C A y �- Z' •_ t7) a C ro N a .� •..y.. C) C v ro x- P E y c y m '.Op •�13 O _ M a) --' E 5 O a) m y � 'O .°, � 7 d w p° y y C y 7 ro Q N° w M €� ,Ly •j C y« LD a) �' fp a V L C p ro N O 7 L O d y O e °� a) d a) •O tm = a) ro d c a y O C L a) O C E LL C ro a7 0 9 2 a1 C m� C O C ro y ro p 06 p Q.�' Cd y C' O C to .p. C 7 d O C l` OL ui a OQ 'C p -a aL 7 O a :�1] c m w 3L-0 o y c 0 Cfp as ofm c d p of E a O E C `—° 'ro o:°: cY c yc mA E Lrororo W 0 co y N a) yE � 8 �=- ayi=E �. N p w cro Lo (D m �. p ro Zm l6 y (D -6 ro y C N d D a) N a) 7 C O` C ro ro 2p 'E .0 N X y w ro y y c c y p a w ro y I ro rn N y'� '� 0 0 •CL a C Sg G a)... y y d y J E y C 7 '- 7 ro ro a N C y� C C AC ., y A 4)idO '«o a) 5y� N i,. O r- �m sc y5 yw C N o ya d= O aE acc�Ec"S 7 a) a c Aro 2 E `m a .� c c •c a�af E o _0 roo _ RLfn o� , o ° z a�-� E ro CL C5 Uwc w E E a �U a m 9� c� ac'�dao ° m o o m 8 {p J E Y 3 $ O L N 7 Q ° c y E o L of C O a C y y pf O y 'C a7 C O la 3 a) E �«tea L ,C Q) $n ,.m. cd a: ��o N� y D A« ro' 'a O y m fp C �f° 4 d ayiacia�E M d 7 CD p LO 01 A o N N r a) 5 y ro y E row f3 E •C mx E C o �p O a vi •� E w e O d p._ L ,D c y ro t m C E E row c p d x :° IL v 'Co U w 'a p A y c ,-M 'C C roc .L. O E m E m °' O..0 L°..:� p w m N' O C N (n 0v' m O m W a) a O) C c C O V" C E m~ O _ N t) O `O N E C a O ro ° N > - v C N a- Iya a.Ew::�ccaoE�Sz7 is w a '°O ��ca�m �%pc mo a d a) a E ro y •c y y 'a m d y a) �ro y y ;a m Q O y -0 c C E ro o °° 12 6 �% (D E 5 rn U y c 0 O N s 4 u; v; tea) d _na.—cr;a) m E m C o y t uj d d N E ._ CL o on a r a) m 12 R ° t5 E :e a) 'S a E N a y a c� w ro y o � O_ o c 'c� N• m C o 'a 'L3 2 C U r 3 m tS o xmx I -W a) CwLLLfn aai y roU y OW�L F -w d� p� ro U J row U roUw° ro - cN O Zi E C N O O) 'i yt 7 W C t N E _ V m m `m «°° CD w E C o = a� = a o 3_ Q co D d a m w cy W 2 J U O O Oer O M O ON O cpi rr rM Hrr cliC* NO Cl) N m rr lev r MO c�9 N N Pei �1 U y LL LL y y y LL LL. N LL m LL LL LL LL LL Q X Y ? > > Y Y? Y E Y Y Y Y Y O f` M to N e} O N a' f71 N M t• W tD N N 'P ao ao M off N t0 w O a co O �d N O N M M 'a N d' R7 t71 1A st 'a M N e} 01 r r N O r LO N Cl) tri co M OO N rN„ N r N H N to V? V! V3 dt di Vi !A 49 V! to #0 VT to F- N f` n It (n (0 h V' (p c0 N to r r N r (0 (O LO r M N p) O Cl) O m V M NO r O a d a LO cn Ln r C t7 C G G e! 0 N O M `- P m v y iy M M r r r r r r r � C O am 5 O = n (p r .t{ (O Go N P ..- ` (O (O00 N to O M O 01 V; co Il� N 1� (p O O r LO M (o r O6 O O G M O f'- O r r M r r d a > C& — m M 7 E c 7 E m p p = p O O O a `o .c �f°r_D w� a �c allo wN U �c0c O N c= '•.�.+ •(Sc �Cp7 C N C O omr_ E a) y- ZS O CtT 0 C E A.0y.. N to C N w Ap N�O.. E . O ' ` U CO cO�o •p c p5 E Earn c yvi� 00 o ui ��' A m 'cmc to E E is CF a s d oc m� c c pm w v 07 :E 06 _o C H C CL L Ci t N L1 •(a (J �U N N U 'Cf C O O y ro C Y '� a _ D S «rn N c �° w T y N d 'C O O (�0 a C O C i L 0)L C 6 m N f6 0 .fA Oz L a) tM C (0 N tm O t0 a -' N 'o n' E E O E C T c V 'z a) O cm C C C J l0 .O 7 C N N c y y 7 C N y 7 a U O LO y .O 'Lou) E l0 C O C y «= y o cc 5 N O (`6 O w O L L y t0 L N c C t0 t0 L Y N L-• $ p E a �°� a H y C t/1 v O L E ..�. f0 C •(a 8 C E a. C 7 a(8vio c 'Z c X s R O1 .0 C C E 'C w N Nj O7 u _ O) O Q) c .L. C N O y R N LL Q3 U' E C O g a S N a (0 w a_ V d .3 f0 O 2 a O C a1 (0 N f0 a) Q C E$ in C •.ti' .•.. L E 0 7 N to a 7 N a y �. p8 N '= O '� 0 O O O y O E U C y N 7 (0 O E y W a) L U d itt a m E N O a o N �C t1 yy L U OS E 95 0 H L .0, m 02 H m L.w� f6 N O C 12 a � H p C oo E N d -O Cl y 2 0 0 0 CO j N y 0 ffyQQ C y o ° "'00 c •C w C07 d N 3 t0 ycE�c�aa�c� a ly0 d y m C w c N C m y L Ec��c O a) EL to O a) O d O T C O O C y oti I_ (!i C Ui (0 (n O O Z$ w O `o E rn C 7 O a L. C O w .O. c` N a c N C tm 7 E L CL j O d C w E N j N4 Q vi rn U U p E U A V A (J .D a) b C C •I'_-• '(-f a U 'y E 'p0 7 y N y O •'O" /�7 d O cC W (n C` •O N' O C "• y m> f0 c p m AaQ a> > o2a- •c S d p o �> a�dIL „O., o c 4)CL o 3 o c UvLL._ M �S O n m_ z c a�0 E E (a aac�w 5 g(D mo oaa m 9 y y U) -01 c o m0. LL O U o N m CO a c A C o U R21 m 8 E CL m ao' (� Ec E O m E 4)U) U o $ «° O o > m n Cl) p O o 0 E f U F c d oCts (� 00 a (� O m 0 d (D O LL U am y aci d L= o U Z (D y m a�0i 7 Sc p [n L Q N N W a 2 -a L U N O .`O J p J a) U` C vJ N 2 O N Vro O to M t• M M QI N 01 ` O N N N O M O .a O O k to to O 07 r O O r N r O N O to O t0 V of h LO H N (o N H LO f` f` N :D u TO 2 Y1 LL U) LL V) LL UJ LL V) LL U) LL v) LL V) LL 0 U) N LL U) LL U) LL U) LL w LL V) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J ao n Ln M to tD co r co r n M ton co r m to eo N Lf) DI LO N o (D _ N at cl {D Ir t} N M n 1 N n 0 0 N P M 0 co n co P N T Q P T N N Of 0 4A. % % to40 40 N ~ CD N CD CD co n a; fn0 a0 ti ar Q N N N N M r N d' N N fAT O T l00 n tp CD (D co N NLL r r r r M P N N C? (6 O O O G O C O a N N v an0 O a`r0 a0 r- 00 r a er v r V M N LOd" (h M N 4 12 N LO W a Eo 0 m E Z' N N O O w C m O r „O, N N E .,0.. w N �.: O O E O CD N Q C y C ; o1$ O C7 m 9 U N O N O O) N O �N.. N (vj a d >` J ~ O N L y t C m m O. O m E VJ 0 0` 0 0 a0 N f6 m C N C C m O C p p O N L O C O C 6= 'O H O .0 �6 N f'Cq N m .., 0 0 6) N C +� m ro C •. .Y O. a O d .0 E C +m+ C O N m O y 0 0 7 y N ro O E ID j N 6) A O O N 0 N c 7 J m ; 0_ N 0 w% C E m E 0 E d O '� �g Ag) C m N a7 Q. = O W N O m 'C y> m Gy O.� C7 C 0. m C d 0) .2 N rcm N (� m N .O .. m 0 -E O r- C N O O a E 20 t2 t C N E V ,O =L m m•H E` � N ON EN 0 'OL'N L O OO C O 0 C �'� O Ikad O 0 p NC N O CC N C Ntm w�i cN �� E (6 O CL OjIf N(N O JO wN m`o 61 N �y� N tl% C (6 N•"N mm C_ N � �c °am- rnod �wQGj� N G O 5 rya •C = N �mm� 'C E E O N aNim�M E O I_CL C N m •C C O C Q .0 C G m ai N = M C •p `G+ L C O. N E •O N N •Lc• N 0 0 ..0+ (/1 .6 N m -0 b C L O C y C C G N g Rf '."O-_' s Lr, E O> E d p '� Z$ N O 'O �' C K y G •� C y m L 0 7 C ,� E M E O O 'O w O G N y w N 'N-' L E m N 3 O 0 L LP O C C C O) C O O m ro v O ( U(p) � ppo y +% N 0 0 0 0 �1 Z O) O O O a E N N O O O) t7 C C ev O = "" f6 y N E N y m N fT0 O N •p N O 0.N C V U d C RS yNy O N C Ol N N O N O a y �6 N C y N C 0 O �.�., ` N N C N .`�' E 0.S N N O c r-(�(��` N U Rf .(E C y$ C .. O, O) �6 (6 O O N O y y d 'O 6) N N=- N O N 'O (IDm�1E(am2a CJ L y L O O ,C� O) O C w m 2>IDI4>N�a�'i U m O � y cc N 0 13 ac�oy�EE� U ° _ tA? m OE'Fl Qvcn Z` Q �Oinl- toLL2L 5a aE m Z 0 f0 LL U)LL � L m E2 Q JL d �. °a O .0. O O m > w ci a CD 0 ro a� O m C m E N c (D y •O o U) (.i m N 2 !2 a d Q tm d m N N N po N E O O d C m m m D C d = z z H c=n U a W C o n N r M Pr a vs r m r n P o N P o0 d o N P N o a0 V n ao eo ao m Go 6o ao 06 ao ao co 00 TO •+V A N r1 U W F- N m `1 m O N 7 a C m m �E m v0 C 7 N co m CLO a 'C N a a t5 CO w C m c n d 0) d m L N c E ° HLL L = C w c ° > E 9 O y N N d N N C O a� a U m N m C a C C CEO CL M ani maa c o Y '� •Q � c c w o •0 C r C N Y Ga o O A N N N C � d L C 0 O y U a; a m m w LL C O. O T C 7 H N a �imvw 810 m N E w N inan.EtL ayi hl l0 2- N N y � 3 m N 7 9 y m w O) o C C � N c ° r P/ C N u E E w ° o co E i m ti o` E w N w o II `O `O 7 y C m oa E ocE•y� O C o=y ca a ori Z) LL o y y N o 0 w CO ?Y�ccU-tn� U c yJ ate., J k� 2 C,� o � c 0 u ;-Ld o VO) 0= 0 = 0 L N C co Y U Y to Y to Y to Y U Y to Y co Y cow Y = o N = ° o N = ° o LL a LL C LL a N r <p d' d tD O M p M O1 O O M �- H N p O h t0 to 'CP t0 r t0 U h N t 00 t0 N Ot1 O 10 F N r M h r N M +r r O Go e- Im r N IH IR /A Iii N~ M O W M r O N N O W) = C7 V LOO M CO t0 40 Qa tV T m 0r- O O to l0 t0 to t0 t0 M N m LL OD M r h N h N N N M CO N CO N M M N N P 00 t`7 `- OA o 0 0 0 o a o 0 o 0 0 0 om'C F- 7 O �Od. R r N O) m a' to V Cl) t0 a0 tb M M th U) m',06 O M Vt0 f.0 r r r rLfi IL j C j C C N 0 C � ° 'L ° C m N O 1 N N N C a N N C Q y w N N Q C 1 a w m a) m C w w aci c L y 0 N a a �' aQi N E O E ° tl n m E N c y 0 c ° m w y m N E N CL ccu N m c a .O N l co d ° tl" cm U m d U N O` a w+ c`�m N N E 3 L�ma� O ao N 0y Y C y U C N N a C C Ul tl C L SS V C 0-0 Co L C CL LIQ! N L Q LO N -C L O 0 C N N N N gym, O y ai E> a m ca m E N 9qj�} a m C L C m N .m. N C a> N° O N m E C N O LD •C d y 'C R) 4= y m 7 C CD •o N d > N :7 j m N C m' m N�0 LL ci�co U rn8 rn E o t (Dcv m .m w s m C_ N C C 7 ° LLU: y 7a2 C 0U m LLLLU t0 ° O '° O.:d N mN fAL(4 i0 d CO m a H m S L ayi 22 m L 0 LU N � y0 9 C Of E cmm a m r 0 YX c m Nd y o O« UJ UJ U V to y m m °� m a o s o n. o c Z u' c •g) Z m tl C C H U. ti (!� %� N fn N N M CL 7 LL m C o 7 0 m 2 N� m LL U-1 C 0 m C7 O C7 U m 0 U U N U F�—,Oco,i N r N 4M M d' I t0 t IN � tD W w m o 0 0 0 0 0 i N m `1 m O N 7 a C m m �E m v0 C 7 N co m CLO a 'C N a a t5 CO w C m c n d 0) d m L N c E ° HLL L = C w c ° > E 9 O y N N d N N C O a� a U m N m C a C C CEO CL M ani maa c o Y '� •Q � c c w o •0 C r C N Y Ga o O A N N N C � d L C 0 O y U a; a m m w LL C O. O T C 7 H N a �imvw 810 m N E w N inan.EtL ayi hl l0 2- N N y � 3 m N 7 9 y m w O) o C C � N c ° r P/ C N u E E w ° o co E i m ti o` E w N w o II `O `O 7 y C m oa E ocE•y� O C o=y ca a ori Z) LL o y y N o 0 w CO ?Y�ccU-tn� U c yJ ate., J k� 2 C,� o � c 0 u ;-Ld o VO) i Y Q' L co T (� P Cl) IL L M T O ff? CiT CL R d O C) I N `fid N w� W Q W M T P W 6 �A P R a L d v ri w� W Q T O W Cf P „V ^^W CL O .1L o O Q � co U') 0 a 0 css 0 m � 0 f/! (� 0 N M N O El> O Eiq ..� CN b9 y Gi Ce) O O m 'O O CO 1- M 00 ffl !fl pi Q a: U- L N X fR E!} (Pk W O o N o N O N d P N T N P N C Co M ch i O IX C T P w rn O (o o 0 _ .O _ C o Lq N U N I N P CA L P O T O T oT K 613, 60, 6* 'L W O.� M eF 'C o a o U) 00 0 0 0 ` N N N C C L. r r P d d N N N Z 69 CA 64)- ) - CD O R C tOt) O a. 3 LO Cl)r �J,/� V / N M P r CO CO P � to CfT O T P P CC) to v d N N N r r O r O O d V) LO LO 01 0 V- N C C L 4 a a R a L d v ri I- N It r- N R d Ct N 0) I- N It r- N T W Cf P „V ^^W CL O .1L o O Q � co U') 0 a 0 css 0 i 'fl LL. f/! (� 0 N M N O El> O Eiq b9 m 'O O CO 1- M 00 M 00 .a O(n C1 C (o U) N P N T X fR E!} (Pk W O o N o N O N d P N T N P N fA d? EPr 4)CD i CD C3 O O LO O N N C14 N CMO CA C O T P T r W Lq N U N I N P CA L P O T O O LO to W) -� M eF C C L. d a a R y �yTy G� c O U) L. cu C. U 0 C4 d" co t` M LO 00 O 0) 0) M LO a) 00 00 lqi M N N N Fir, W O Z A � N u u e N O 0- 2 O U N N N � O �> .i (� L W O Z A � N u u e C .O N O 0 O d' 0 0 \V c 0) 00 E N 0 U 0 M U CM M �-- NCL c o 0 U C/) Itz O C: U) CO 60- cnNa) w O U � V C cn A V O U C .O N O O d' 0 0 0 r c 0) 00 L. N Lo OO 0 M cM CM M �-- NCL c o 0 U U O C: U) CO 60- cnNa) Ca E O U � 0 C cn � V cn V c L ,O L= 0 v CDU N �C)� U) 0 Z v N .O N O O L. N r -- c o 0 U U O C: �.� cnNa) Ca E O U � 0 C cn � V cn V c E ,O L= 0 v CDU N �C)� U) 0 Z v N o a` c 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 o voi.en 00 0 0 Nie - oam - - 16 o - 0 0 0 o w www w w w wwwwwwwwwwwww m m o m wwwwwww c w .E a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w www w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w MESS=8 00 0 0 218.1222 0 o N N N Noo..00- _ . U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a r 3 U N u N n m N N N ,XaL C NMd � Nd,;NNNNN��NNNNNNNN W y v U R��°��_— m m 'o m .� o UUoci u U UUciUciU PC 0 u u u Qoou u°UU ci ciUUUci ciwUociuUU LL Q Q 4 R R a E m U o - m D 3 12 v c m E E E '> EIS w - E m D m m �ofK¢�� o g m' o z' 5 5 5 Q `� 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .32: m a z z z z z z z - - - _ E _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0666662 E E E E ...33333333333333333333333��� 11666656166686>868 0 a` o O O ❑ O W F > O F � m ¢ O ° ¢¢ m a << c w w W a Q m o -p 0 w < Z 'o �p�3 �a Q �a�mw wwwQ ma>o L) L) u m rr zmo� �wm�¢>Oa w Y O 5 5= taa`a9` ` m w w mmm� w w 0 Nm w w3oazww❑o z i v a m N> wN z> J F> N N a m o �$r¢mN N❑ z rn ❑> in �rnz °mm " a c ao -- " .r Nw ¢a xxz �W❑m�°o x U7Ur xxNx U 3mYo 0wUOxwH¢¢ ow�x°OzaQa 3i3�x3n°'z �axaWWx ❑ O2 .02. ¢�.gx >i m m m "a- m m m 12E >> a a o N° to i w t� m w w o o¢ c7 N°❑ o uti c 0 z c ozom ❑= zmzzzON��U=w=o❑xzz0x3�NLLUm0x w Q o U L W¢X o= w 3 W N o ¢ of> = x UF'waf D W x ❑ m u •O W Foo Z z Z Z❑ waz O O W ❑ z `C 111 ¢ w ¢ a z 0 0 0 V c Z i s > z ❑ Y y a F �¢ ❑ ❑ Y a' O ° aZZzlw-K o » O W a Jm F F x a N a o o r oop w woo=mN z m a - p > m a�F O w Q Y N F O m'1 > ->Hz❑ a a c7 Z E _ w.m K ❑� x z m x �z w 0 -�w Q> n >- Z W HONNm❑❑J> >>> Q a Q Z Z m Q r_ ❑ Z J K >w Q > O O a i tY y K « c „ u m 7 Z O W m A ~> N w W z O W F N LL o O ❑ o F- w J 2 w❑ W o' o J _ 7 k 3 0 g 0 W _ W N°° ❑ i W W x a 3:W x� oo �~ ~wi W Q Q E O �YY aUUz�o --»� 1-Q i r =-1 r�o❑Ja�° oz3�o,z UNx rc 3zmawa5rnxm�°Oc7c9°❑ zF-a a'2r W =xx ❑ aaz❑ K act°°� x a°�maW A i o 3 3 2 H 0 A U W W z m ia>=ZWo-z---ww3a,,,ww3xx°- U - 0 a rr 5 x o=❑ 3 W w P z m „ E w c a - a O w X �� ❑ ow a >3 „ 5 Y❑N�z o W¢ O° 2 5 m N c xm a '° z F O a y ❑¢> o w °¢ ❑ a m> ¢ w ui ❑>¢ ❑ O 1- Q m❑ O m< Z ❑xx Z Q W W N O d E E ❑ ❑¢ ra Y W w> x- W N z 'a d Ir w w w > 3 a K❑ O K Y K W a O ❑ m¢ p O 0❑ W C7 W> j F W Q w N❑ r K Q> a wmao Q K 3 K❑❑ a a c �oo❑�» Q F c ° '" �« ❑-o' r a" a o°NK❑WF W °a w W x = a,�=mWz� mN F W zWw°zmw�'aal-mNNxw F N �wWm�omo3�o��a�>Uoo� w Q- LL m z o-�Ol-m W Y z Q nv m❑c��m�� X0.0.. r O _v A n:� » �Wo�W v = N �3>°>�oomiz> Z a O x 3zNU w- Y �aOz❑ Z 'o w $ W c� C a' z �-z ❑ Z W W Y Y IL 111 ... m o a = d=mmmmNN m N w N N N N C ; I z p U p W m 3= w m k g O N 3? O a 3 0 3 o a a 2 o K Z> = o° Q Q z n=> w 3 3 3 0 3 r z ❑ 0xUmaa O a 0 0 r w=>>j> » z Ux❑ U z m E z o z z z m> m r Igi mUUUazzzzzNwN N N xmw �;�I tE W Q 2 U > c Z Z � W � j ( J d O U J W O W d ❑o 0. 0 0 80.08.1. N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 c0 MIS O O O 00 O O O O O O V w �n 0 0 0 0 191. O y O O O w O w w. O O wwwwwwN O N O O O A wwwwow.w N O ,E O O 0 w 0 0 w w N wwwwwwwwww b N 0 .Y. w o 0 0 w 0 0 wN N 8888g ww w w 0 ww 0 os 0 N O Q M1 p - - N O O w h ry vi O O d 0 L ~O C wN N lo NN Nm C A O) H w E Q ww . w w w w w w w www w ww www wwwwwwwww wwwwwww w a wwwwwww _ N U U - -w - c3 m - - - nuc ui iv�N - c m - w - w w � w w o N h w w V w � w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w U N V Y Y N C O O N N N N N N N P N N� TT. N N W N N ____ N O D. u UUU Fi t� Ti U >m >m >m € w a Y v 'o f a '15 'o n = 2 2 c c c c o2.2 . ....I 2 .II ora c �YrY°xYYy_xxY n° Y�YYYYY 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 w w w 2 p m` v p m m o co co co co 0 0 o co w cw Yc, v c Y o co _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 3 3 - - - �zzzzzYzz U z a ~❑ W oz c EE c ❑ w¢ 3 Za dm ❑ z n u a 'WW aU w m❑ Y o�z❑ O p O F z �w i Q m a'>27 a E c s m> a a m z a O j~ m w w N > wj U v w m u `m -Y m d '" E c o v g o u c W a w z m ¢ LL 0❑ a� Q m z O Fa z m m y a 3 w U' x o H U k y '� Q m Q s v 6 f0 s m N 2 m f0 o U J-1 Y 6 f m2Jmrw 2 asa 2 O v z z W K Y a U 3K Z j W 2 Y U K� N x2 x (7 K� ❑ mN O Z W a> UiR07�i s w vi. jUU�� 7 �atO - W ��i u'. �n `rY c`invu�i a wE > a O c w m O ❑ m > >� ti ❑Q W m 2 `u E vYi E m�Z �r3.i<owamg qa zm U¢ N> w> ❑3 na.LL m p Q? 0 m 3 r p ❑E W ti ¢m W z m N m E O w 'no o a m o��w?=3-w x m i W N z Z w�� m N Yxa>LYLyS m m a _ Y y C 2 aim wo;x g(7x cwla Uzx 2i z O LL❑ a mm3❑ ZnU O1»ci i=��'�3 W W ❑ 3 0 W t ❑ y n LL z0 Oa O❑❑>, a 3 H Q Y W 2 6 K L 3 °� H w ❑ Y a W w > m z m; m a W z j 0 a Q� Q~ i w a w - W x m W v m Y w Y E u w Y u ac' w^ ' v a S x v m Y 'c Y- 'c z o O m m w m W K O a cai Y z w Y F w z W k m LL> p: W d u~i x d 7 Z K c '� °ot a N E' N y v N y y Y Y L c c m Y Y N Y 9 m Fx- y W "» RO'm o�w2Q��3wooaak mLL 21-��i U' U' z❑m OSU� 9eo� liaw mm 6av�mnmmUev�amU� =¢'tart<Ea>� >a'a'a'L UUK W m W i cOLLWWO m�(71-zx�UN am E n w n J