HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Utility Retirement Board request for item to be on agenda P till 0
29112 loll 50010
5151232-6210
5 January 1983
Honorable Mayor Goodland:
At a meeting December 14, 1982, the Utility Retirement Board voted
to present the attached proposal to the City Council for their
consideration. We would appreciate your assistance to get this
item on the City Council agenda at the earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
G�a�?
Don Setterberg, Chairman
Utility Retirement Board
ms
cc: Steve Schainker, City Manager
Gina Bicknese City Clerk
Betty Jo Harker, Secretary, Utility Retirement Board,
Director of Finance
Merlin Hove, Director, Electric Utility
Harris Seidel , Director, Water & Pollution Control
Board Members:
John Ringelstein, Vice Chairman
John Thurston, Council
John Parks, Council
Harley Cheville, Electric
Marwin Bogue, Electric
Paul Larson, Water
Ron Swanson, Finance
Ex-Officio Members:
John Klaus, City Attorney
Leonard Lapehn, City Treasurer
UTILITY RETIREMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL
CHAPTER 28 DIVISION IV
TO THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
At the Board meeting of April 15, 1982, our Board requested our secretary
to contact our acturaries regarding the calculation of the cost of no penalty
for early retirement after 30 years of service, and what their cost would be
to make this calculation. It was June 25 before we had a reply. At our Board
meeting of September 14, 1982, the Board requested the actuary to study the
"30 years and out," and that it be implied that the earliest "out" age would
be age 55. We received a letter dated October 25, 1982, from the actuary
which was discussed at a November 3, 1982, Board meeting. It was determined
some clarifications were needed and that a second alternative to increase the
formula for retirement calculations from 1 .8 percent to 2 percent would be
desirable. It was also decided to poll the members of their interest in these
two changes using the data to be supplied by the actuary. The information was
obtained by phone and confirmed by the attached letter of November 22, 1982.
The attached letter of November 18, 1982, with retirement examples and
ballot was sent to all the members requesting their interest and willingness
to participate in one of two proposals.
Proposal No. 1 - Changing our system to allow retirement at age 55 with
30 years of service but without reduction in benefits (or normal retirement) ,
with employee contributions to be raised from 5.55 percent to 6.93 percent
(plus 1 .38 percent) and Utility contributions from 7.55 percent to 8.92 percent
(plus 1 .37 percent).
Proposal No. 2 - Changing the retirement benefit formula from 1 .8 percent
to 2 percent, with employee contributions to be raised from 5.55 percent to
6.65 percent (plus 1 .1 percent) and Utility contributions from 7.55 percent to
8.65 percent (plus 1 .1 percent) .
The results of the poll are attached, 88 of 108, or 81 percent of the
ballots were in favor of making a change, with the majority 48, or 55 percent
in favor of Proposal No. 1 .
At a Board meeting December 14, 1982, the Board voted 7-0 and one absten-
sion to prepare and present a proposal to the Mayor and City Council for
consideration, We propose to change our system to allow retirement at age 55
2
with 30 years of service without reduction in benefits (or at normal retire-
ment) . With the cost of 2.75 percent to be shared 1 .37 percent by the Utility
(from 7.55 percent to 8.92 percent) and 1 .38 percent by the employees (from
5.55 percent to 6.93 percent) per the actuarial study. It was also proposed
that the increases be phased in over several years with an effective retirement
date for those retiring after December 31 , 1984. Per the attached Exhibit "A,"
July 1 , 1983, the employee contribution would increase .69%, or to 6.24%.
July 1 , 1984, the Utility's contribution would increase .685%, or to 8.235%, at
a total cost of $26,854. July 1 , 1985, the employee's contribution would increase
.69%, or to 6.93%, and the Utility's contribution would increase .685%, or to
8.92%, at a total cost of $56,930.` As you can see there are no additional
Utility costs for the budget year 1983-84, but it is necessary to get the
ordinance in effect by July 1 , 1983, for the employee increase.
We realize this is not a good time to be asking for increases, but this is
a program we feel is so important to the members and the utilities that we must
try to get it started as soon as possible. The majority of utility workers
perform work that lends itself to the strong and young. A lot of the work is
performed in an environment that takes its toll on the body. The hours, hazards,
and nature of the work make it difficult for some workers 55 years and older
that have performed this type of work for 30 years and over to continue working.
Some of those who haven't reached that age can already see the toll it has taken,
and want to start preparing now for the day when they cannot perform the strenu-
ous, hazardous work in a safe expeditious manner they are accustomed to.
Last year we made comparisons to four other utilities, Iowa Power and Light
Company, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, Cedar Falls Municipal Utilities,
and Muscatine Municipal Utility. We have contacted these utilities and updated
the 1980 figures to 1983, and they are attached to this report, Exhibit "B."
As you can see the average cost of these four is 7.67 percent, and the two
closest ones 8.3%, not including disability costs. Our Utility cost of 7.55
percent does include 1 .35 percent disability cost per the weighted 7.55/13.1 x
2.35 percent per the actuarial study, or an actual retirement cost of 6.2%.
We have a unique retirement system administered by an efficient mix of employees
and management, but totally under ordinance and budgetary control of the City
Council . We have the opportunity to improve the system together, maintain the
expenses comparable to other utilities, and initiate action that will provide
in the years ahead a method for those who have served the utilities for 30 years
3
or longer, are 55 years or older, and feel they can no longer perform their job
in the manner they would want; to retire with dignity or pursue other less
strenuous activity. We think this will benefit the individual , the utilities,
co-workers, and the retirement system.
Ames has always been a leader in many things. In this time of distress and
confusion with the Social Security system, we want our retirement system to
offer our members the best benefits possible, and to start paying for any im-
provements as soon as possible to keep the system actuarially sound. We certainly
appreciated the City Council 's approval of the .55 percent increase in contribu-
tions last spring to match the employees equal contribution, and enable reduction
of the early retirement penalty rate from 1/2 percent per month to 1/4 percent
per month. That was the first increase in contributions since the present system
was set up in 1964. If this proposal is approved, we do not foresee any future
proposals for increases in the contribution rate. This type of proposal has been
actively discussed by our Board and members for seven years or more. We present
this proposal to you now with adequate budget preparation time for your consider-
ation. We hope that with the information we have provided you can support
approval into ordinance of this proposal . I can assure you that those of us who
are performing the work necessary to keep our utilities operating will be most
appreciative.
Respectfully,
Don Setterberg, Chairman
Utility Retirement Board
• 1�1 1 1.1.I NIA N i-'t ItO I i�t'I'tiO N. I tNC.
CONS111.'1'IN(i ACTITA1111's
"QQ0 WEST DODGE ROAD,SUITE 3C)9
OMAHA, N1-H1+ASKA 6E1114
` 402, 3W3 04C)L)
•, ^NO Arr LCCw F S A
♦cD AAENC F 5 A
. 0 SAO( r 5.C A November 22 (fin9F3 1 ^
.••CS R B[RGViSr r 5
.0 ORG[L Bf RRY F S
")AVIDR 91CrERSTAfr r C A 5
•.UMASw&Lf..NC1 F 5.
bNJNC)V 6L;IN f S A
.�I YHEN D SR N■I S
NL:Of my C CAMVBC LL r S.
•.ObF qT"CHANDLER r S A Mrs . Betty Jo Harker
TUN"CHAIINfN r S✓ A.J••A C"CSNCN I S A Director of Finance
b•FTUN, CL(NNUN I S A
~ BERT LO•.LTT r 5. Depot Annex Main & Clark
^N♦..00wSON r 5 A
• r5.C°"'"I s A Ames , Iowa 50010
5 CVSTIS r 5 A
.... 1 DA"AN r 5 A
• - S. DOR AN IT S•
""A
t DUN ARe: Ames Municipal Retirement System
I.I NI I 5 1 �
•- HI Nr J Or M,JWS•I r S A
• .'.CC rf RT r 5 A
•N.•IN5 I!IWARDS c C A Dear Mrs . Harker:
IT 5 A
.Ni[L J rLAH[Rf1 f C A S
•RrL R.N. r S A
•(ROE Ri♦/RIrCH f 5 A tT
d NN'SJ GRAFr SA Or the 30 years and (jut " 11 lr1n, the 5. 36$ of pay cost
.-.rN�.•J GR.NNANF C AS increase was referenced to the provisions in effect
E IN-5 L GR..1 5! 5
•NE T S GR..F S rC . 5 before adopting ).•.R.E S W H.bl C.r 5 A p g the lower early retirement redLic-
.. H•„5rR " , 5 A t ions .
F S
HAFR`,r 5 A
" "
S.,N 5 A Given the adoption of the 1/4% early retirement fac-
r N••,N w 15A.
IF C- 1
,
for with a 7 . 55% City contribution rate and a 5 . 55$
.NC C.1)Rr D JAI r S •
°"NSJ" ` 5• ,employee contribution rate
.'A N(Ir wA,W.wSAI r �. the " 3 0 years and out"
.ui.f plan would result in additional City costs of 2 . 5% to
q, C
""""`G'� ' '• 3 . 00% of pay as D Lrl r 5 . the more probable range. If everyone
" ,E'aSIRr SA availed themselves of the earliest possible retirement
1 Uh.I.D V� �EM�N.r 5•
1 FI. N•C T I..• •iN r S• F i me
w.1 .IrLw• ; 5• l� , the additional. COSt.s could range up to approxi-
• •" '^r ` 5• mately 4.4% of pay.
^- •.IT
HONE I r S A
'.4AN J MA T TSUN I S A
"•"L` ` 5•
Mr URT Hv r 5 A If the 2 . 0% formula were to be adopted and added to
♦NI.�J
" "L'"" I
F 5 the revised plan with the 1/4% early retirement
. K.•S MC Nw(S
"'J"'""^1O`
T.TOHUgn_ r S A factor, the City' s costs would increase approximately
e-w.H�o 5
"°1 °GD"7' 5• 2 . 2$ of pay. Our early studies showed that the 2 .0%
.1-1 W LIMOAL r S
"'R°` O550S
u.nl Rw%,r A formula would cost about 2% of pay, but since the 1/4%
•h.w.N
RE IT Pr AB�.DI r 5. early retirement factors would apply to the new for-
...F VIAwSL+N 15
' ""'"' � • A mula the additional cost is more than before .
~.brgl._014 r S A
'.♦.J• wHLJI. F C A
'AL, 1fjFQ_5"• These additional cost fi(lures relate to City contribu-
RANI• R.•nF FI`r:)N r S A
n•.'(SS N, ANDr S• tions . If the employees pay part of the increase , the
••�.A S St DL ACC• r S •
."°.AS51"".ER r 5 A total cost is actual l n1,11.HD5r.,HrSA y �, little more than when the
`""°5"'°`R"` 5• City pays it all . This is because some of the em-
Jf MS J SUL Ue.N r
5'EVi ND 50MME■r 5.
" 5 . ployees ' part- is paid out in refunds when terminations
DOVSG rI 5 rSA occur before retirement .
� L IAM S T f S A
r RAIAIA H0••AS LDG TOr r 5 A
I'NLEI\ Iul IN r 5 A
'•CSRT.LrRrS•
NC>R Call me if you have any questions on this .
!W B WAND f S A
•ARD WINw CNM'f RDCq F 5 A
t~uCC W WIN TCRHOr,r S A-N.L Dr OR I C A 5 Yours very truly,
f!'-'.aCC l WORn".N f C A
nl NDr LL MILL-AN Or 5 A 191451
•^"FSH RIGGS r S A 11979, O/1VA/�jAL
Denis .1. Sullivan, F.S .A. , J. D.
•TERN HOUSTON RGO-DENV[R Consulting Actuary
..•",Oj@1h4I WAUKjNDIANA►GLIB n S :`7w
)S ANGE LE•�MILW AVw[E MtNN[A►OLI •7 l
N.
W TORN OMAHA IHILADCLIHIA
V HUE NIa-►ORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO
SEAT TLC-WASHINGTON.OC
Ar.00 •rTD Ih.:ANAOA WIT" ���� 1 ' �
TO: Members of the Ames Utility Retirement System DATE: 11/18/82
FROM: Don Setterberg, Chairman and representative for Electric Administra-
tion (including City Clerk, Manager, and Inspection)
SUBJECT: Special Actuarial Report and Board "Proposals"
At our board meeting of April 15, 1982, your board requested our secretary
to contact our actuaries regarding the calculation of the cost of No Penalty
for early retirement after 30 years of service and what their cost would be to
make this calculation. In a reply of June 25, 1982, the actuaries stated a fee
of approximately $400 would be the cost. At our board meeting of September 14,
1982, the board requested the actuary study the "30 years and out" , and that it
is implied that the earliest "out" age would be age 55.
The actuaries reported in a letter of October 25, 1982 and by phone Novem-
ber 18, 1982, assuming all people would retire at the earliest possible age,
that for retirement at age 55 with 30 years of service and without reduction in
benefits, there would need to be an increase of about 4.4% of payroll over the
current level of contributions of 7.55% by the Utilities and 5. 55% by the employ-
ees. Until there is some experience to see how the members actually respond to
this type of retirement provision, there is not much to go on in setting an
assumption on usage. So, they estimate that the actual additional costs would
end up around 21Z to 3% of pay over the current level of contributions , but the
possibility of potential cost of over 4.4% of payroll should be kept in mind.
Proposal #1. At our board meeting of November 3, 1982, the board voted
to poll the membership as to their interest and willingness to participate in
changing our system to allow retirement at age 55 with 30 years of service
but without reduction in benefits ; with employee contributions to be raised
from 5.55% to 6.93/ (plus 1.38%) and Utility contributions from 7.55% to 8.92%
(plus 1.37%) , based on the actuarial study that an additional cost of about
21z to 3% (assumed to be 2.75%) would be needed. This is based on participation
shared approximately equally by the employees and the utilities .
Proposal #2. The board also requested a poll of the membership regarding
changing the retirement benefit formula from 1 .8% to 2%. This change would
cost an additional 2.2%' of payroll with participation shared equally by the
employees (from 5.55 to 6.65) and the Utilities (from 7.55 to 8.65) , based on
the acturarial study as of July 1 , 1982 and recent update of November 18, 1982.
Attached are examples of the effects of these proposals and a ballot.
If a significant majority of "yes" votes are received on either of the two
proposals , it would be our intent at our, next board Meeting, tentatively
scheduled for December 8, 1982 at 7 :00 p.m. at the Electric Administration
Building Conference Room, to prepare a proposal to the City Council on this
change. If you have any questions , please contact me or another board member.
Please return your ballot to your board representative or as directed by
December 3, 1982.
We appreciated the interest and response last spring when the members
and the City Council approved of each contributing .55% more of payroll to enable
reduction of the early retirement penalty rate from 12% per month to -u per month.
Members of the Ames O lity Retirement System •
Page 2
November 18, 1982
That was the first increase in contributions since the present system was
set up in 1964. However, we are convinced that with what seems to be happen-
ing to Social Security, it is very important to strengthen our Utility Retire-
ment System and to return to you at retirement the best benefit possible.
DS :bas
Attachments
cc : Board Members :
John Thurston, Council
John Parks, Council
Betty Jo Harker, Secretary
John Ringelestein, Vice-Chairman, representative for Water Pollution Control
Harley Cheville, Jr. , representative for Electric Distribution & Metering
Marwin Bogue, representative for Electric Power Plant
Paul Larson, representative for Water Utility
Ron Swanson, representative for Finance
Ex-Officio Members :
John Klaus , City Attorney
Leonard Lapehn, City Treasurer
Utility Management:
Steve Schainker, City Manager
Merlin Hove, Director, Electric Utility
Harris F. Seidel , Director, Water & Pollution Control
O • •
00 cn
w
� o
C C) lD m O
a) r+ ^ Ln LO O M n Ln N N O N
NM M Lf7 n a; C11 ^ CM 10 Lf O 4-J i
L. to O n LO d Cf LC) r-I O Cl) I�l N c 0
•r 0_ m r+ O m 00 ^ l0 t0 LO d d O i
N ^ ^ E O rp
�k aJ '••� .--� •••-� O a
bR a) O
J >
•r rl i
N 4-3 64 a)
C) = CLC) U
Q) O N
CL v1 M
0- o e o\\� o\\� o\° 0 4 \ o\° 0 4 \ c \ r-4
ZA Q M l0 0) N LO 00 r/ d' rl� O O 00 .6q
X
i
t I 1 t I 1 I 1 1 I I � .--� O
•r
� c
C. O L
c CD w M CO :T CD CDa) -C E
a) 00 O Ln .--4 m O CO kO O M O .0
QU N cT (= n 00 d C" ^ LP Ln O 4-) a)
L. r0 I" 00 .-4 m l0 C) d 00 M 00 d L C CL
•r 0_ O O 0) 00 00 r� l0 l0 Lc) LO 0
�- t-) O U 00
U to tY to t0 >)
J > ¢ C L .--4
S.- a1 N E
X tJ) Q 4••1 a) O i
w O i E O
Q�•r
Ind 0 0� } C •V i O
t i 00 O .,•.. N :3 C)
Y S- M i i O O
w O Q)
N C) Ln
aJ tfT
N In
CT a) m 4-
V) Ln (v C +-) a) 0
Ln CL cc S-
C
0 LO Ol W M cJl M M r+ CDS-
CD l 1
w (71 I\ CI1 N l0 I-_ C) (a a)
Q E L r
w a) Q) >1 N l0 Ql N d M 0) [•M N I_� 00 4-)
^ N L ra n Ln Ln l0 00 O cY 00 N I-_ Qt r- C
�-+ w ra •r CL 4 O m w r, lD tD LP d d M CT) 0) O O
F- Q a) 41 b C 0 r
W S i Z a) -1 -4 i .r 3 4-J
Of tR a -0 0
C F- > a) .r .0
Y 0 - Ln
:
•--� \ >) X •i
J C) S- w - O S- r- c
• C1 b C
F- C) r CO o Q o f o\\� 0 2 \o � C) O
'• ICf o\\' V
M lD 171 N Ln 00 -4 cf' r- CDC CL
b7 L E +' i
X 1 M 0- i L
C a) •r ro 4-3
0 .0 ^ O C
F- QJ - >> O
CT M LD C) C) CO --4 M C:) C) C) S- E c S-
oo E
M V • 4 -4 N Ln lD LO (D O a) • •r 0 a) S-
CL V1
\\ w --4 1- r-, C:) lD Ln r- N O O 0) (A E CL0
LO o° N Ln I\ O -:I• 1� r-4 Ln O Ln O >> c L i O >>
1 l to Ln lqr d M (\i N 4 r-1 O O +-1 r +-) Q) L0
_ } •- C C d a)
.-•ti .� .--1 '-1 •--1 .--1 r1 .r •--1 .--1 m S- O Ln N
tol c ro E o 110 M
Q) w O •-1 a)
O O 64 i
a) a o v
N V 4-3 M N r-1 S- C
i .— C M r-4 tiT O •r
ro > O m 00 I- k0 Ln cY M N .+ O a) i—
(1) S- Ct M m P') cM M M (`'> M Cl) M E a)
>- a) a) > Ql r L
to i Q t t-+ =3
r 4-) >> C O
-- - 4-) +- i 0 3
a) 0 4- ea E
CC a) O r•- N
c •C r0 L. t4�
aJ >> 0)4-1 N (1)
E i S O S-
rC)
a) a) (0 = o
i 0) Ul d M N .--1 O m b r- l0 m w II 000 O
•r Q l0 (.0 l0 110 4.0 l0 LO Ln Ln M LC) >) . d
+-1 II w m O
t a) Q 4- . 4 i
Cl. S r tf} 0_
INFORA OLL OF UTILITY RETIREMENT SYSIN MEMBERS
Please mark box with a 1 for first choice or 2 for second choice for each
of the two proposals , or check the NO box if you do not support either proposal .
#1 /% YES, I do support the Proposal #1 for retirement at age 55 with
30 years of service without reduction in benefits, with an
increase of employee contributions from 5.55% to approximately
6.930% (plus 1 .33% of pay) .
#2 / / YES , I do support the Proposal #2 for changing the retirement
benefit formula fro,n 1 .8% to 2% with an increase of employee
contributions from 5. 55% to approximately 6.65% (plus 1 . 1% of pay) .
#3 /% NO, I do not support either of the above proposals.
UTILITY RETIREMENT SYSTEa FOLL jz- I`+ -82-
BAL RETOR►..1 SNTERPRETA AJ D,E. S.
P1opO5S1 "1 2 NO
PROPOSAL tJ�
PA►JKING OR CHOICE, •x r 41 r
1 /24- Wa+q?-
' « s
2bj i Ad Thu III
11
/5- 6
Z4/ Powar J' I( 1'1 H
!I
Dap{
Z S
z.Z Lina 111
illl
P I b.4,
2-4 30 ( o Zo
--T"o-}-a s 4-8 O 2 0
l LL J
U Q
W �a N
v t QC OF 2 T
ku
jz
Ilk -4 W
F-
0
2
M 0W
° I S T D O o W
ti a E- a z 2 j ii C Q
Z
i+-)N
C; EXHIBIT "All
m co
• O
+-3
a�o
a) LO
>�00
O �.o
r- • 4 M �Y N C:)f1 +1 N LO r1 M
W 4--) r (n
•r O N tb Lf) ri l0
LO
N •r O t� �{}
r6 +-1
O O
S-
u QI
C N
J Q)
LO i
Ln 00 U
O O') C
f1 -1 �4
O Q)
w w o25 Q) l0 cY M N U')
CL r1 >,4-3 M rl CO rl t
O N O
O w
N CO L!; •-1 r
O 7 10 W 4.4 64*
cn
H
Z LO a
W QJ fM +•I cM O co M ct
t0 Cn L r)
W C U) (M 00
QJ CO O
i +J U N 01 1
U O N-
W C a 1 N F 1
M o
>- CC) Cf- LO
m 00 00
C)) l0
J r-I
H i • (1) O Ol n d O
O fG —4 +-1 >>+1 kD l0 00 M LC)
� •r O U) O) mLn Lfl C)F- C �r- r O w
Z fa r•r 0-L.) M N CS) rl
W •7 +-/ E ri N
m 7 =D W b4 EA
U-i 1.0
J
d
►-+ �t A 1
(D N +-) 1 1 I 1
O 11 r4-) O O O O O
(t5 l0 r N I I 1 1
Q) •r O I
V) i O +-) U
W U 4-1 O t!} -
r-1 C
t.4 o 0
F-1 (Jl
J M l0
►-� p
QJ QJ
O w QJ >)+-1 C) -:I- d CO �
F- r-1C\j
O O (n m n d' �' LO
t-D
L/) r d U M N CO Lf)
CD � E E N
U ^ W W fl) H3
LO l0
4-3 CO q
N 00 00 O
"a 1 C)) m
C O O Lf) NN MLf) LO C NriM U Lf) MLO d- MLn --Iko
:3no Q) 00I0 -4 OI0f-1 O -zj- IOLf) •r Old' O CO0000 00
LL. C N ri M i LO • 4 LO •r 1.0 00 M i n O m 1 Cr) 1 QJ I Q)
>> Q) r •-I Cl f- +1 N L!) CT M G1 r U O e 1 O CO M m 00 (L3
+-) r- M M 'Ct• 10 Gt I-, O r Lf) f\ m Q) F-1 M O Ol a a) Q) 01, (J
r QJ •-1 ri r1 3 Lf) Ln l0 r M M M r t0 00 O •-4 In .--t i •--1 S.-
r N U O W •• •• •• 16 U U
•r Q) N m N N M Q) QJ Q1 C QJ C
+-1 r In i N i--� In ►.
3 Q1 C Q) N Q1 Ln
i i Q) i Q)
�' Lf) L0 Gt LA LO mt U) t0 � Ln L0 U U •r U•r
+-I CO CU 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO 00 C In C +) C +J
Q) i 1 I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 i ► Q)►� •r •r
O 10 M 4 Ln M 4 'A M 4 LA M 4 Lf) •r r r-
C) 0000 00 00 00 00 00 CC) 00 co N 00 In +•1 In •r V)•r
>- M O)1 CY) O» M M 0) m C)) Q) m Ol Q) •r Q) +� Q) +-)
fb r1 -1 r-1 �--1 ri -, .•-1 .-1 ri ri ri r-1 Q)r- N O N O
O +� O r— O.-
=:) r- tv r tz
f1 f1+-) 0-+-3
� tn ko1.0 I'Dkn t.0to EOEOEO
+ + + + + + + + WZWi- W �--
• ai EXHIBIT "B11
> o
Q •r
zs •r
v �
+J o
�p L a_
•r �k
N L oLno LO CD1�
i--a M o N o O o 1�
= r6 L l0 l0 N l0 1� CD1� Ln DD i.p
X i +�
W a) O r 1_:
Q Gt � Ir LP
M
N
X
N r
C
'- 00 11- O b CO r-
-) M r co M M r N 00 O I N r
ra LV -czt t0 N N t7 r M O LO \
Ord 1\ If 1, c; Is cl Ln
O N r N r M
bq
O
1 O 00 00 t 'ct cn t7 0 +1
Od- o\° N LOo\\° rr\ 1000� 00 ::t L
1 M OI M Gf OI N K lO M 1� M C) r� N M r tT
•O r n w w .r
F- M a) fu O r 10 00 r 10 CI r 10 t} r 1c M r—M a) C
Z 4- 00 U LL N r r r 3 O
W O I 6t'T •r
M I 4J
W V)
K N to r •r
I--r W
F- O •r 3 1 -0
W F- a a)
1 +-) U NLV r CD C) l0r C) LO
(� C
J M fG •r C) r o s Q)i� CD N o\\° CD 00 °\° CDM \ •r
> 1 tC5 i OION a .CN 1\ OM LOOM OItr
F- M 4-
Z+•� n w w O Q)
= O O U r N Cl S.- 01 r N 01 r r 01 Z C,7 a V)
J 4- (N t-4 a) N 0— N r
r U O a) r 4{3 M 0 C
� W
F- Z r •r W a)
4-3� C i > 4-) X
y S_ O r6 O V) a)
LL O O r -0C) J d 4
-1 Rf M r
-J Q N O) C 1� LO M d' 1� CD LO m +�.)
N O a) i LnNZ -01 OOlo� l0O o ON o •r
f/) W 4 U O 3 3 O 1� 00 Z op OI w OD 00 0 00 00 w 00 i r
w CO .—
CD L.LJ 4- iZ 0 0 N :3 L
U S its a) 0_ N r`i N r C`•) 4-) rp
F- +) 0_ to U U VI
LL V) C
O >- 1 r C r
m N
Z a) S-
C) 0 E (4
Q) a)
a 4-)N Q (� r o\\° 1� 0\° M 9.0 0 Z l0 r-o`; N r °\° o M
�-+ C W V) C) C) L1) M C) L.') O r Ln 00 1- Lf) M r-LO L17 LP o\\° >� i
O_ 4 a) NL0Lr) l0VLf) � l0m C) Ln NCOLO LMM N { m
Q O t] E w w w n . n w o n n n w .r L1
d Q rr1� cc'
rrt\ rf\ 1: NP- 1-r l0 r
C) 00 N r N r M * 1 •r V)
U •r 1 � L
U N r0 a)
1 Vf >
i N r
� • o° r
i Ln r
a--) M ro
O S- 5�. L S.. VI
Cl ra U (t) +; fa i••I CO +-) co
a) o\\° r (I) o� r a)
rp ra • r0 fu fG ma) 4--)V) In � N (/) V) N 4j r
O M r
E r
•N
•X �
O
i
r d
ro C CL i
V) U o ra ()
C
O i +) i V) i-)
°zs N r rp C r C i
r a) r r o C-) O d--) O a)
0••N O CL •r I •r rN
0 0 U C (1) C •r U a)
O d i i O U = C C L
f� ••� �a) W a) W
VI W •r •r •--t F-
� 3 = C4- C E Lo
O •r Co M CD LO OOt0 04- r 0 -0 - k
Z JM � N m �-� M d • � M ZOLr) ZQr r Ir