G-2. Authorizing Transfer of Funds and Establishing a Loan to the City's Water Fund for Construction of Well No 15F
MEMORANDUM —a
CITY OF TO: Mayor& City Council
CHANHASSEN ',
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
7700 Market Boulevard DATE: March 9, 2015 Ol
PO Box 147
Chanhassen,MN 55317 SUBJ: Authorizing Transfer of Funds and Establishing a Loan to the City's
Water Fund for Construction of Well No 15
Administration
Phone 952 2271100
Fax 952 2271110 PROPOSED MOTION:
Building Inspections "The City Council approves a"Resolution Authorizing a Transfer from the
Phone 952 2271180
Fax 952 2271190 General Fund and Capital Equipment Replacement Fund of$1 4 million to
the City's Water Fund. The funds will be used for the construction of
Engineering Well No 15 and Repaid to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund and
Phone 952 2271160 Revolving Assessment Construction Fund over the Next 8 Years."
Fax 952 2271170
Finance Approval of this item requires a simple majonty vote of the City Council
Phone 952 2271140
Fax 952 2271110 BACKGROUND
Park&Recreation At the city council's work session on February 23, 2015, staff discussed the
Phone 952 2271120 construction of Well No 15 and the plan to finance it internally(borrowing from one
Fax 952 2271110
of the city's other funds to the water fund). Internal financing will save the city bond
Recreation Center issuance costs and it will benefit from the interest paid on the issuance of the debt
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone 952 2271400 Interfund Loan,Well No. 15
Fax 952 2271404 Bond Issuance Costs $40,000
Planning& Interest Savings $110,000
Natural Resources Total Savings $150,000
Phone 952 2271130
Fax 952 2271110 It had been planned that the funds would be borrowed for a term of eight years,
therefore the internal repayment would be planned for the same term One hurdle that
Public Works had to be researched was the potential impact on the city's bond rating from Standard
7901 Park Place
Phone 952 2271300 &Poors if we used $1.4 million in cash to perform an internal financing. The city
Fax 952 2271310 asked its financial advisory firm to analyze if there would be any negative impact on
future bond ratings and issuances Their analysis concluded that there would be
Senior Center minimal to no impact on all of the rating criteria as demonstrated in the attached
Phone 952 2271125 analysis and memo from Ehlers &Associates
Fax 952 2271110
Website Once that conclusion was made, staff began discussing which fund(s) to borrow from
www ci Chanhassen mn us and how to repay those funds Staff is estimating that the 2014 General Fund surplus
will be significant, therefore we are recommending the $1 4 million in funds needed
be transferred in equal amounts from the city's General Fund and the Capital
Equipment Replacement fund to the Water Fund.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life-Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Mayor& City Council
March 9, 2015
Page 2
In previous years, city council has transferred the majonty of any general fund
surplus funds to the Revolving Assessment Construction Fund Therefore, staff is
recommending that the first payments of principal and interest be repaid to the City's
Revolving Assessment Construction Fund (years 2016-2019) and the remaining half
be repaid to the city's Capital Equipment Replacement fund (2020-2023)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize this internal financing and related
transfers
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution
2 Analysis from Ehlers &Associates
3. Loan Repayment Schedule
4 Chart Demonstrating Transfers and Repayments
f\gregs\council\2015\memo to council on transfer and well foi loan docx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA
DATE: March 9,2015 RESOLUTION NO: 2015-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND OF$1.4 MILLION TO THE CITIES WATER
FUND. THE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WELL#15 AND REPAID
TO THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND AND REVOLVING ASSESSMENT
CONSTRUCTION FUND OVER THE NEXT 8 YEARS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AS
FOLLOWS:
1 That the city is estimating there will be a significant surplus in the city's general fund for
fiscal year ending December 31,2014, and
2 That a transfer of$700,000 from the city's General fund(101)and $700,000 from the city's
Capital Equipment Replacement fund(400)be made to the city's Water fund(701); and
3 The funds transferred to the city's Water Fund be used to construct well #15, and
4 That the attached repayment schedule be used to repay the funds starting with a
February 1st,2016 initial payment, of which the 2016-2019 payments will be credited
to the city's revolving assessment construction fund(601)and the 2020-2023
repayments be credited to the city's capital equipment replacement fund (400), and
5 The city council has the right to require repayment of any portion or the entire amount of the
loan prior to any payment dates indicated on the attached repayment schedule at its
discretion; and
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of March, 2015.
ATTEST.
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger,Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
0 To Greg Sticha,City of Chanhassen,MN
Mi From Nick Anhut,Ehlers&Associates
LI.j Date January 14,2015
G Re Rating Analysis Memo
The City has asked Ehlers to perform an analysis of the use of City funds to finance$1,400,000 in water
system improvements and the potential risk to the City's"AAA"bond rating from Standard and Poor's
("S&P") To help better understand the analysis and factors that most influence a rating with S&P,we
have replicated the scoring of their new U S Local Governments General Obligation Rating Criteria The
intent is to give the City of Chanhassen additional perspective on those key economic and financial
metrics behind its current"AAA"rating and the score's sensitivity.The analysis uses information from
the City's most recent 2014 S&P rating report,2013 audited financial statements,Minnesota Department
of Revenue records for Economic Market Value,and U.S Census population data.
It is important to note that S&P has reserved the right to adjust actual ratings from the indicated rating by
one notch. S&P's criteria also include several qualitative factors where we believe the City can further
reinforce its credit status Details of the scoring are included in the replicated scorecard attached to this
memo
S&P Rating Criteria
S&P evaluates the creditworthiness of municipalities using seven key factors scored 1 to 5,each carrying
their own assigned weighting An overall indicative rating results from the weighted average score
of the seven factors. The scoring of each factor is based on defined quantitative indicators and
qualitative adjustments Below,we have replicated the results of the City's last rating evaluation
in 2014.
S&P's Seven Rating Factors 2014 Score Weighting Weighted Score
Institutional Framework 2.00 10% 0.20
Economy 1 00 30% 0 30
Management 100 20% 0 20
Financial-Budgetary Flexibility 100 10% 010
Financial-Budgetary Performance 2 00 10% 0 20
Financial-Liquidity 100 10% 010
Debt&Contingent Liabilities 3 00 10% 0 30
Total Weighted Score AAA 1.40
S&P's Indicative Rating Scale
Score Range Indicative Rating
1.00— 1 64 AAA (City's indicated score: 1.40)
1.65 - 1.94 AA+
1 95 - 234 AA
www.ehlers-inc.corri
�3�� �g EHLEIRS
Minnesota phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois fax 651-697-8555 Roseville,MN 55113 1122
toll free 800-552-1171
Chanhassen,MN Analysis and Sensitivity
Significant changes in one or more of the seven factors may result in moving the rating up or
down The following analysis looks at the likely scoring impact of the choice to use internal
funds to finance the 2015 water system improvements We are assuming the source of the
$1,400,000 interfund loan will come from capital funds outside of the existing general fund
balance
Economy: No Impact While this score holds the highest weighting, Chanhassen scores in the top
category and it is unlikely that City actions can have any significant impact to income and value
measures in the short-term Additionally, the scoring is primarily based on residents' income and
property valuation which is not directly impacted by choice of funding for the water
improvements
Management: No Impact Chanhassen's top score in Management is based on the stable set of
financial tools, policies, and reporting practices in place at the City. The City's choice to engage
in inter fund borrowing as an overall cost saving mechanism likely further solidifies this score
Institutional Framework: No Impact The Institutional Framework score of"2"is a standard
score S&P gives to all MN cities to reflect the legal and financial framework they operate within.
This score is re-evaluated internally by S&P's analysts and published annually
Budgetary Flexibility: No Impact S&P's criteria attempts to measure the degree of flexibility
the City can look to in times of stress S&P uses the most recent audited information and is
measured as available fund balance as a percentage of general fund expenditures S&P considers
available balances those of the general fund and other governmental funds as long as they are
unrestricted and legally available to support operations. The City's most recent rating achieved
the top score of"1"by maintaining available fund balance above S&P's threshold of 30%of
operating expenditures.
In 2013,the City reported an unassigned general fund balance at$5,274,584 This figure alone
represents 51%of S&P's calculated operating expenditures. The City would likely utilize
balances from other capital funds to finance the mterfund loan. S&P does not currently include
any capital funds balances in its calculation of the City's score. To the extent the City intends to
utilize capital funds outside of the general fund, the current score would not be impacted.
Budgetary Performance: Minimal Impact S&P's criterion attempts to measure fiscal balance
in both a general fund and total governmental funds perspective using net revenues above or
below expenditures The fiscal net result of each is calculated as a percentage of expenditures
The City scored a"2"in this category based off of the 2013 audit and projected 2014 results. The
transfer of$1 4 million in governmental funds to source the water loan could increase S&P's
calculation for total expenditures and decrease net revenues,but would not change the general
fund calculation. The impact is minimal as the city's score would remain at"2 "
An important consideration is the criteria attempts to gain a more sustainable view of
performance by smoothing out onetime revenues and expenditures such as capital outlays or
capital transfers If the City chooses to internally fund the water system improvements using
governmental funds, it will be an important discussion point during a future rating call to walk
the analyst through the onetime nature of this activity.
Liquidity: Minimal Impact This category measures the ability of the City's unrestricted cash
and cash-equivalents to cover expenditures. First compared to annual total governmental
expenditures, and then compared to annual debt service Chanhassen again receives the top score
of"1"based on maintaining liquid assets well above S&P's thresholds of 15%of total
governmental expenditures and 120%of annual debt service The City anticipates a reduction of
$1.5 million in cash in 2014 due to the prepayment of the 2004B Bonds. Regardless of source,
the use of cash to fund the water improvements would represent another$1,400,000 decrease in
S&P's measure of cash or cash-equivalents and potentially a corresponding increase in
expenditures as a transfer out of governmental funds. Due to the magnitude of the City's cash
position,this decline poses no risk for the City's liquidity score
Debt and Contingent Liabilities: Minimal Impact S&P's debt criteria focus on two measures.
total general obligation principal outstanding as a percent of total governmental funds' annual
revenues and total governmental funds' annual debt service as a percent of expenditures. The
City current score of"3"is based on sitting just above the 60%threshold of net debt as a percent
of revenues,with debt service at 12%of calculated expenditures Choosing to loan internally
instead of issue new debt generally solidifies this score.
An important consideration is that S&P nets out any G 0 debt that it considers"self-supporting,"
or 100%repaid by non-property tax based revenues such as a utility or other essential service
enterprise. When issuing debt for the utility systems,the City traditionally pledges to repay the
debt with utility revenues. It is unlikely a new G.O. bond issue for the water system would
impact the City's debt score given this exemption. Therefore,the lone debt scoring consideration
is whether the reduction in capital funds on hand due to this project creates the need to borrow for
other potential projects prior to loan repayment
I look forward to discussing these results with you.
Standard Poor's New Criteria Estimate
City of Chanhassen,MN-General Obligation
S&P U.S.local Governments Rating Methodology:Rating Summary
(Assumes data from City's 2013 audit and S&P's 2014 Rating Report)
5&los$even Rating Factors 2614 kore "Weighting Weighted Scorel Kati
Institutional Framework 2.00 10% 0.20 '"
c
Economy 1.00 30% 0.30 '1- 04 . ,. A
Management - 1.00 20% 0.20 -i 1,65-2.a4 Mt
Financial-Budgetary Flexibility 1.00 10% 0.10 1.95.2.34" M
Financial-Budgetary Performance 2.00 10% 0.20 '° 2.3§,yg4 '
Financial Liquidity • - 1:00 - 10% - 0.10 2.85.3.24. A+
Debt&Contingent liabilities - 3.00 10% :0.30 3.25.3.64 A
Total Weighted Score AAA 1.40
3.84-3 94 A-
395-424 BBB+
t ing Factorss K _ 71,,,---,,..„?.'
4.25-4.54 BBB'
- - 'Porftiye Overriding Factors- " 455-4.74 BBB--High Income Levels(EBI>.225%or>300%U.S.) 1 or 2 notch adjustment 4.75-{S4 BBGtegory
High Available GeneralFund Balance: 4.95.5.00 1- " BCetegory
>75%of OF expenditures(current and projected) 1 notch adjustment
.(" Negative Overridi g Factors '.
f Weak Liquidity(score of 4 or 5) Caps Rating at BBB+or 8B+
Weak Management(score of 4 or 5) Caps Rating at A or BBB-
Lack of Willingness to Pay Obligations Caps Rating at13 for debt not in default
Available Fund Balance<$500,000 1 notch adjustment Key
Market Value per.Capita<$30,000 1 notch adjustment - =Base score kdkatlon
2-year Structural Imbalance no plan to restore Caps Rating at BB8+ :4!"....:;'...464,,=Potential score w/adjustment factors
Negative General Fund Balance
<-10%of GE expenditures Caps Rating at A+
<-5%of GF expenditures for 2 yrs Caps-Rating at A-
<-5%of i3 eupenditures for 3 yrs Gas Rating at 888
Rating Background
All governments of the same type within the same state receive one score
Factors' Institutional I
Predictability the extent to which a local government can forecast its revenues and expenditures on an Score Range Framework Score
ongoing basis 1 1.5 1
Revenue and Expenditure Balance the extent to which a local governments have the ability to finance 175 2 75 - 2
the services they provide 3.0 3.75 3
Transparency and Accountability the overall Institutional framework's role in encouraging the 4.0 4.5 4
transparency and comparability of relative financial Information 4 75 5.0 5
Systemic Support the extent to which local governments receive extraordinary support from a state
government when the local government is under extreme stress
f S,ao !i`:E , ,. kr rd'-'',..!?ii/;"-- ,'it b :.a,d `.+1 •4a.�z,
Factors. 2014
Economic Market Value(2013/14)• 3,692,988,746 Per Capita Income Market Value per Capita
Population estimate(2013)•• 23,642 As%of US >$195,000$195K-$100KS100K•BOK $80K-55K <$55K
>150 1.5 2 2.5 3
Projected Per Capita Income as%of US 188% 110.150 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Market Value per Capita 156,205 85-110 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
70-85 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
<70 J 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Participation In larger/diversified economy(MSA level)
S&P uses Per Capita Effective Buying Income(EBI)
•MN Dept of Revenue Includes portions attibutable to Hennepin and Carver Counties
"U.S Census Bureau
Note Rating and scoring are estimates only and do not include qualitative assessments with which the Rating Agency may adjust the rating up or down
Prepared by Ehlers 1/14/2015
Standard Poor's New Criteria Estimate
ifi5,....ij.ftiA, '. cne,a;
Past FMA 'Strong (2014)
Topics(Policies)Examined: Weighting,
Revenue&Expenditure Assumptions High Importance Rounded Score Characteristics
Budget Amendments&Updates High Importance 1 FMA Score of"Strong"and none of the factors In score 4 or 5 are present
Long Term Financial Planning Average Importance 2 FMA Score of"Good"and none of the factors In score 4 or 5 are present
Long Term Capital Planning Less Importance 3 FMA Score of"Standard"and none of the factors in score 4 or 5 are present
Investment Management Policies 4 FMA Score of"Vulnerable or any fin.reporting restatement with material
8 Less Importance negative Impact,any score 5 condition last 3 years,structural Imbalance,or
very high pension,OPER,and debt burden w/o plans to address
Debt Management Policies Less Importance
Reserve&Liquidity Policies Average Importance 5 Regardless of FMA Score,any of the following present.
Management team that lacks relevant skills resulting in a weak
Overall assessments are communicated using the following terminology The capacity for planning,monitoring,and management;
term"Good",in addition to the terms"Strong","Standard,and"Vulnerable",Is An auditor has delivered a going concern opinion,
used to further differentiate governments.The difference In degrees of
Importance Is limited,however,so that each factor's contribution to the The government is actively considering bankruptcy in the near term,or
assessment Is meaningful The government has shown an unwillingness to support a debt or
capital lease obligation
L ice ,' a rr
an o.low ng �r'=M r';.. v,+"SiA.3 E F% .a*r.F �a_ ..�'S
Analyzes most recent,current,and following year 2014
Available Fund Balance(unrestricted). 5,274,584 Available fund balance as%of Expenditures
General Fund Expenditures" 10,148,479 % >15% I 8 15% I 4 8% I 1 4% f <1%
Available fund balance as%of Expenditures 51.97% Score 1 2 1 3 4 5
•General Fund and any other balance legally available for operations Omits assigned balances within other funds($3.7m)
••S&P's calculation Includes transfers out as expenditures
i.5 isdgetacy Performance - 10% Potential Waiter Loan impact: Minteitii
Analyzes most recent,current,and following year 2014 Water Loan
Adjusted General Fund Expenditures. 10,148,479 Total Governmental Funds Net Result(%)
General Fund Net Revenues(net of transfers)• (17,466) General Fund Limited Balanced Pressured Significant
General Fund Net Result(%) -0.17% Net Result(%) >1% 1 to-5% -5 to 10% 10 to 15% <-15%
Limited(>5) 1 2 3 3 4
Adjusted Governmental Funds Expenditures" 18,135,140 19,535,140 Balanced(-1 to 5) 2 3 3 4 5
Total Governmental Funds Net Revenues` 2,297,510 897,510 Pressured(< 1) 3 4 4 5 5
Total Governmental Funds Net Result(%) 12.67% 4.59%
Adjusting for onetime expenditures relating to TN capital improvements and unrealized net change In fair value of investments
.fiti^+. �b, me `m- n ±ro±*v e tea*- as
Analyzes most recent,current,and following year 2014 Water Loan
Total Government Cash and cash equivalents" 31,163,984 29,763,984 Total Cash%of Total Total Government Cash as a%of Total Governmental
Adjusted Governmental Funds Expenditures 18,135,140 19,535,140 Governmental Funds Debt Service
Total Cashes a%of Total Governmental 171.84% 152.36% Fund Expenditures >120 ( 120 100 ( 100 80 I 89 40 I <44)
Funds Expenditures >15 -1 2 3 4 5
Total Government Cash and cash equivalents. 31,163,984 29,763,984 8-15 2 2 3 4 5
Total Governmental Funds Debt Service 2,189,487 2,189,487 4 8 3 3 3 4 5
Total Government Cash as a%of Total 1 4 4 4 4 4 5
Governmental Funds Debt Service 1423.35% 1359.40% <1 5 5 5 5 5 t
Includes
'�Deposits„petty
yca{ssh and liquid Investments(<1 year maturlty).Excludes restricted funds y*
eki
As of the end of 2014 2014 Water Loan
Revenues Governmental Funds. 19,398,869 Total Governmental
Net Direct Debt•• 11,890,000 Funds Debt Service
Net Direct Debt As%of Total Gov't Ed Revenue 61.29% As a%of Net Direct Debt As%of Total Governmental Funds
Total Governmental Revenue
Expenditures Governmental Funds 18,135,140 19,535,140 Funds
Total Governmental Funds Debt Service 2,189,487 2,189,487 Expenditures <30 30 60 60 120 120 180 >180
Total Gov't Fund Debt Service%of Expenditures 12.07% 11.21% <8 1 2 3 4 5
8 15 _ 2 :' '.:_t: 4 4 5
•Adjusted for onetime revenues related to TH capital Improvements 15 25 3 4 5 5 5
••Total direct debt adjusted for non-tax based self supporting debt 25 35 4 4 5 5 5
Water Improvement Bond issue(if levy supported) 1,455,000 >35 4 5 5 5 5
Resulting Debt%of Total Gov't Fund Revenue 68.79% 14>65%total direct debt coming due In 10 years(excludes balloon maturities)
Resulting Debt Service as%of Expenditures 12.21%
Note Rating and scoring are estimates only and do not include qualitative assessments with which the Rating Agency may adjust the rating up or down.
Prepared by Ehlers 1/14/2015
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
$1,400,000 Water System Interfund Loan, Series 2015
2015 Water Capital Improvement Projects- 8 years
Sources & Uses
Dated 03/09/20151 Delivered 03/09/2015
Sources Of Funds
Capital Equipment Replacement Reserve Interfund Loan $1,400,000 00
Total Sources
____._._.._.._.__._._.__.._._._.._.......�_.._-..._..._.....-..._.....__...__...__._._._............._.___..____..._._...._---.--....._.__._._.__.._..__._._..__..____....._.___._..______.._..___._---._...._.51,400,000 00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund _ 1,400,000.00
Total Uses $1,400,000 00
Chanhassen Series 2015 Wa I SINGLE PURPOSE I 2/10/2015 I 2:34 PM
0.:.E1133,t.E:RS
:, 1 �t/t#+uet t -Fteix Page 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
$1,400,000 Water System Interfund Loan, Series 2015
2015 Water Capital Improvement Projects-8 years
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+i
02/01/2016 163,446.04 2 500% 31,305 56 194,751 60
02/01/2017 163,837 75 2.500% 30,913 85 194,751 60
02/01/2018 167,933 69 2 500% 26,817 91 194,751 60
02/01/2019 172,132 03 2 500% 22,619 56 194,751 59
02/01/2020 1761435 34 2 500% 18 316 26 194,75160
02/01/2021 180,846.22 2 500% 13,905 38 194,751.60
02/01/2022 185,367 37 2 500% 9,384 22 194,751 59
02/01/2023 190,001 56 2 500% 4,750 04 194,751 60
Total $1,400,000 00 - $158,012 78 $1,558,012 78
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $6,320 51
Average Life 4 515 Years
Average Coupon 2.5000001%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 2.5000001%
True Interest Cost(TIC) __�_.... .__ _—..,.._._..._.......__. _...._ 2 4852462%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes __..._.—.....__._.____.._.____�.___....._..__.._.�AIC 2 4852462%
iv
All Incluse Cost
_..._._.....---_._....-__--.--(. �___.___....__._.____..._....___._..._..._._._....–_._ 2 4852462%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.5000001%
Weighted Average Maturity 4 515 Years
Chanhassen Series 2015 Wa I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 2/10/2015 I 2:34 PM
E
°" r IT,T . i. Page 2
C
L.L.
C
73 O o
.=. 0 U
LL O
4-+ rl O0 o
I C
U
ai t/� t/�
—0 cu gN E 4a al
N
c� N
LI— a,
GC 73
+r C
C � >
cu
L— CU N cc
a) Ea, , t
Cit.
L D .4-,
V) •a C 0
n' = 0 - a•-,
V/ Cr = ra =
LIJ
} N
i )
▪L ° 73
•- C
CD
V)
UL.1_ cv . 22 °
V JTo
ao•
C
0
a)
to /n ' C C C '—
■,_ V0
N U 0 0 O O 00
CU
M O 0Fs
0 r. 0 E
CW 0 +, d• r-i 00 (9 F
CO E 2
Q
'c
ii
c3
CO LL .+-'
—C . . r. co
-a
-a 0
L
L rl C -
�J
r•-1 Li •v
4— C ? 0 co
= c:� o
0 0 iii) > L- r-1 - U
N
> i U
a
-11
U cc a) a) te, vi
Uo L) 4. (Cr) g4-
E
N O N N
}, w w C _o
CU
N >
a, s 4-, 4--1 . 0 2
I— cc U N H c
-a e-1 e-I e-I (.c
_ Ill N N N N
3 n
C o tn- -(n- I"
W E
E a
a)
C V
m
n3 Q
Oomft. a
J 13 CC
_ 4-0
C C = C
0 E E E E
cD CD CD C
Q a a a a.
2 '� W 0 N N m -
>. 0 0 0 0
Cr •- WI- N N N N cm
V mimi CL
re
L L L L
I"Jw AA� CD CD fD co CD
\r M L. L L L o
U u IL LL LA_
a) i:
e1 r"I c—I 1.0
13 N TS %-i r—
C N n N N O
a) 4.+ LL 4-' CCT) rn rn N
S •o C C e-♦ r-I r-I r-I N
tn. tn- tn. tn.
,}, w 3 <
C+a i
W E C
0
V
/t O 4C
-,AR C = C C
CC 0
ai CC C C
N
a a a aCL
CT
Q in Q li s-I
�>
0 0 0 0 -0
Ccv
0L L L L NNe
i
co cD cD CO
= = = fp
�
-0 C
OC WWWW I-
LL LL LL LL