Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 08-15 CCP Joint Work Session with Financial CommissionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL/FINANCIAL COMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, August 15, 2016 6:30 p.m. City Hall - City Council Chambers I.Call to Order II.Approval of Agenda III. 2017 Budget Overview a.Operating Budget Policies b.Budget Goals & Outcomes c.Revenue Trends d.Expenditure Trends e.Market Value Trends f.Preliminary Property Tax Implications IV. Miscellaneous V. Future Budget Discussions a.August 16, 2016 (Tuesday) - General Fund Budget Requests b.August 29, 2016— General Fund Budget Requests Continued c. September 12, 2016 (Regular City Council Meeting) - City Council Adopts Preliminary Budget and Levy VI. Adjournment MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/HNANCAL COMMISSI{ON WORK SESST{ON DATE: August 15, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2017 Budget Overview Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council-Financial Commission consider providing direction to staff regarding the next steps in developing the 2017 preliminary property tax levy and budget to be adopted in September. Background: Operating Budget Policies The Operating Budget Policies provide a basic framework for the overall budget process. Operating independently of changing circumstances and conditions, these policies assist the decision making process of the City Council and Administration. A few of the considerations of the Operating Budget Policies include: 1)The total sum appropriated in the General Fund annual budget shall be equal to the total estimated General Fund revenue and any allocated General Fund balance. 2)The City will pay for all current expenditures with current revenues. The City will avoid budgetary procedures that balance current expenditures at the expense of meeting future year's revenues, or rolling over short-term debt, or that rely on accumulated fund balances to meet current obligations. 3)The City will annually appropriate a contingency appropriation in the General Fund budget, not to exceed five percent of the total budget, to provide for unanticipated expenditures of a non-recurring nature. 4)The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of the capital plant and equipment, and for their orderly replacement. 5)The Operating Budget will describe the major goals to be achieved, and the services and programs to be delivered for the level of funding provided. 6)The City shall manage its cash flow needs by having a target unrestricted and unassigned General Fund balance at the close of each fiscal year of 50 to 52% of the next year's General Fund operating budget. Budget Goals & Outcomes The City Council has adopted the six strategic priorities of Resident Economic Stability, Targeted Redevelopment, Enhanced Community Image, inclusive Community Engagement, Strengthened and Empowered Youth and Key Infrastructure Investments defined as follows: Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe CoIiiiiuiflhIi that enhances the qualiti of life and preserves the public trust k'4 I Dk'A i L3 I LV4 I M_ U4 I I Z I MAY I I I. I IFE1144 04 Resident Economic Stability The economic stability of residents is essential to vibrant neighborhoods and to retail, restaurant, and business growth. We will lead by supporting collaborative efforts of education, business, and government sectors to improve income opportunities for residents. Targeted Redevelopment Redevelopment properties to the highest value and best use will accomplish our goals regarding housing, job creation, and growth of the City's tax base. We will appropriately prepare sites and provide the necessary supporting infrastructure investments to guide redevelopment of publicly and privately owned properties. Enhanced Community Image Our ability to attract and retain residents and businesses is directly influenced by the perception of the City. We will take specific actions to assure that Brooklyn Center is recognized by residents, businesses, stakeholders, and visitors as a high quality, attractive and safe community. Inclusive Community Engagement In order to provide effective and appropriate services, we must clearly understand and respond to community needs. We will consistently seek input from a broad range of stakeholders from the general public, non-profit, and for-profit sectors. Efforts to engage the community will be transparent, responsive, deliberately inclusive, and culturally sensitive. Strengthened and Empowered Youth Youth are a valued resource with the ability to enhance the community with their enthusiasm, energy, and capacity to contribute. We are committed to a coordinated system of high-quality, accessible, and fully resourced opportunities that lead to an increase in high school graduation and pathways to college or career and reductions in young people's experience of violence. Key Infrastructure Investments Proactively maintaining an efficient and effective infrastructure will meet the high level of community expectations. We will plan for and invest in critical infrastructure improvements that enhance safety, improvement life quality, and support opportunities for redevelopment, while sustaining the natural environment. In the upcoming work sessions, departments will be presenting their budget requests. Department heads will provide insight into annual accomplishments as well their goals for their budget. We will discuss how operating spending plans relate to strategic priorities and operating goals and anticipated operating results for 2017. Departments will also provide further analysis on trends that have budget implications. City Council will be asked to provide consensus on department goals or further guidance on the results desired, based on feedback from departments. IWission: Ensuring (ill attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of/lIe and preserves the public trust 2 MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/FINANCIAL COMMISSION WORK SESSION Revenue Trends Changes in revenues can have a significant impact on the annual budget. Chart 1: General Revenues 900,000 600,000 700,00 300,000 2013 Actual 2014 201 2016 Estimated' 2017 Actual Actual Budget —4-- Excess Tax Increment —Local Government Aid —4--Interest Income The City received a significant increase in local government aid (LGA) from 2013 to 2014. In 2014, the City Council adopted a policy that effectively limited the use of 50 percent of LGA for general operations, with the remaining 50 percent used for capital improvements. The City's 2017 General Fund budget includes $775,888 for LGA, which is a budgeted increase of $8,816. The vetoed 2016 tax bill would have increase the LGA appropriation by $20 million for the 2017 distribution. If the governor calls a special session, it is possible that a tax bill could include an increase in the appropriation for the program. Under that scenario, the Department of Revenue would recertify new LGA amounts. > Interest income has steadily increased since 2013. The City's 2017 budget includes $329,212 for interest income, which is an increase of $36,542. Changes to interest income in the future will be dependent upon interest rate changes. > The City received the 1st half property tax settlement from Hennepin County. The settlement included $201,123 in excess tax increment revenue (less tax refunds). The City budgeted $380,000 in excess tax increment revenues for the 2016 budget, but anticipates receiving $400,000 for the full year. The excess increment revenue is difficult to predict, because it is affected by a number of factors that include changes in market value; any delinquent tax payments; tax refunds; and changes in city, school and county tax rates. In recent budgets the City used the excess revenue to help balance the General Fund budget. For the 2017, we have budgeted $380,000 in excess tax increment revenue. Jllission: Ensii;ing (in otti'oc(it'e, c/eu,,, safe coninninil that enhances the qiiaiii' of life and preserves the public trust 3 MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/FINANCIAL COMMISSION WORK SESSifON (Thart 2: Customer Revenues $600,000 $300,000 $100,000 2013 Actual 2014 2015 2016 Estimated 2017 Actual Actual Budget —a—Rental Dwelling Licenses —A—Building Permits —+— Recreational Charges for Services —4.—Court Fines > Rental license revenues peaked at $254,948 in 2013 and decreased to $229,724 in 2014, and 233,426 in 2015. The 2017 budget anticipates $210,000 in rental license revenues. > Recreational - Charges for Services, which primarily consists of community center revenues experienced a decrease from 2012 to 2015. The 2017 General Fund budget includes $635,595 in revenues, which is a $7,312 budgeted decrease from the 2016 budget. > The City experienced significant increases in building permit revenues from redevelopment activities in 2012 to 2014. These revenues were a large factor of the annual positive budget variances in the City's General Fund. The City received total building permit revenues over $700,000 in 2013 and 2014, before decreasing to $536,000 in 2015. The City's 2017 General Fund budget includes $400,000 for building permit revenue, which is a budgeted decrease of $108,000. > Court fines have been on a downward trend over recent years. The City received an average of $265,000 in court fine revenue for 2013/14, but that decreased to $231,000 for 2015. The 2017 General Fund budget includes $231,000 in revenue based on the 2015 actual amount received, which is a $44,000 budgeted decrease from the 2016 budget. Current year revenues are currently tracking to be just above $200,000 for the full year. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe coininiuiuili' that eli/i aiices the qiialiti' of/tIe and preserves (lie public (rust 4 MEMORANDUM COUNCW/HNANCJIAL COMMISSION WORK SESSION Expenditure Trends Chirt I- Tnfhitinniirv rosts (°A Annual Chanc!e 8% 7% 7T 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget ---Inflation —*-'Cafeteria Contribution —Cost of Living Adjustment The City's budget can be significantly impacted over time as a result of inflationary increases. The Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government expenditures averaged approximately a 1.31 percent increase from 2013 to 2015, and through June 2016 the Implicit Price Deflator had increased 0.29%. Personnel costs account for approximately two-thirds of the General Fund, which can be impacted by a number of factors, but most significantly cost of living adjustments and health insurance increases. The 2017 budget includes a two percent Cost of Living Adjustment and no change in the employer cafeteria contribution (health insurance contribution). City health insurance rates are projected to decrease slightly in 2017 due in part to a change in provider. Chart 4: Debt Service (paid trom property tax I $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $- 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected The 2017 budget includes an additional debt service levy of $227,500, which will provide the levy funding needed for the 2016 debt issue to fund the neighborhood reconstruction program. Based on the Capital Improvement Plan discussion, the City anticipates a $330,000 annual increase is needed over the next four years to continue to fund this program. The above chart reflects the 2017 budgeted debt service levy increase and the future project increases. iJissioi,: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe conununiti that cu/maces time qualm of life and piesen'es the public (must 5 MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/FINANCIAL COMMI{SSJION WORK SESSION Market Value Trends Chart 5: Taxable Market Value (preliminary estimates) Taxable Market Value Payable Estimated 2016 2017 Change Commercial $ 284,999,900 $302,538,000 6.2% Farm 758,000 --100.0% Industrial 121,951,800 124,290,100 1.9% Residential 981,654,209 1,043,511,893 6.3% Apartment 195,603,780 213,457,800 9.1% Other 456,000 456,000 0.0% Totals $ 1,585,423,689 $ 1,684,253,793 6.2% Preliminary estimates from the County assessor's office shows continued growth in taxable market value. The City's taxable market value is estimated to increase by $98.8 million (6.2%) for taxes payable in 2017. The market value continues to be driven by residential and apartment. Chart 7: Tax Capacity Comparisons (preliminary estimates) Tax Capacity- Payable 2016 Other Apartment 11.6% Commercial Residential 27.9% 48.8% Industrial 11.6% ...-.-.---- --.—..— TCp!c,asof7110/2o3 Tax Capacity - Payable 2017 Other 0.0% Apartment 12.0%FCommercial Residential 27.1% 48.8% Industrial - 11.4% -- fl. t,,,t, stS4I2O16 The tax capacity charts above provide a breakdown of tax capacity by classification. The comparison of this chart to last year shows that residential properties will pay the same share of total City property taxes in 2017, Apartments will pay a slightly higher portion and Commercial and Industrial a slightly lower portion. )liission: Ensuring an attractive, c/ecu, safe couuuhl!uluhl' that enhances the qua/it,' of life ouidpieseri'es the public trust 6 MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/FINANCIAL COMMISSION WORK SJESSI{ON Chart 8: Median Value Home Most residents have probably experienced an increase in the assessed value of their home over the past year. The Hennepin County's assessor's office estimated the median value home in the City of Brooklyn Center to be $150,000, compared to $142,100 in 2016. This is a $7,900 (5.6%) increase as assessed home values have reached their highest levels since 2010. Property Tax Implications Based on current department requests the property tax levy is as follows: D esc ription-I201 6 General Levy V.T ITIr. $14,669,750 'AIThJ r ! ffI $15,529,670 Changeiit $859,920 7A1IImpact 5.59% Abatement Levy 59,000 59,000 -0.00% Debt Service Levy 639.485 865,032 225,547 1.47% Total City Levy $15,368,235 $16,453,702 $1,085,467 7.06% HRA Levy $308,518 $329,079 820,561 6.66% The next page outlines examples to illustrate the impact of levy changes on revenues and tax rates. The four examples are percentage levy increases of 1 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent and 7 percent. It is important to note that the City is required to include an additional debt service levy of $225,546 for funding of this year's neighborhood reconstruction project. The debt service levy increase equates to a 1.5% increase in the City's levy for next year. The HRA levy, per state statute, is based on a percentage of taxable market value in the City and will increase in proportion to last year's total taxable market value increase. The maximum 2017 HRA levy is $329,079 which is a $20,561 or 6.7 percent increase from 2016. Mission: Ensii;ii;g an attractive, clean, safe can,nnln,I) that enhances the qualil, of /fe and preserves the public trust 7 k The following is based on our preliminary assessed value estimates: > A one percent increase, results in a total City levy increase of $153,682. General Fund operations would see a decrease of $71,864 (-0.49%). The total City tax rate would see a decline of 3.151%. > A three percent increase, results in a total City levy increase of $461,047. General Fund operations would see an increase of $235,501 (1.60%). The total City tax rate would see a decline of 1.802%. A five percent increase, results in a total City levy increase of $768,412. General Fund operations would see an increase of $542,866 (3.69%). The total City tax rate would see a decrease of 0.454%. > A seven percent increase, results in a total City levy increase of $1,085,467. General Fund operations would see an increase of $859,921 (5.84%). The total City tax rate would see a increase of 0.937%. [iissioii: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe co,n,nunitr that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust 8 k'i I (I) WI1 kI] I'A I FiI.)1 All] 1 *'IFJ [l]h. Chart 9: Preliminary Estimates (Based on department budget requests/preliminary assessment values) Preliminary Estimates -7.06 percent levy increase Tax Levies City Tax Rates Payable Estimated Change Payable Estimated 2016 2017 $%2016 2017 Change General Le $ 14,728,750 $ 15,588,671 $ 859,921 5.84%68.788 68.895 0.107 Debt Levy 639 ,485 865 ,031 225 ,546 35.27%2.987 3.817 0.830 Total City Le $ 15 ,368 ,235 $ 16453 702 $ 1,085,467 7 06%71.775 72,712 0.937 HRA LeW $ 308 ,518 $ 329 ,079 $ 20 ,561 6.66%1.517 1.531 0.014 Prooertv Tax Chanues (Based on 7.06% Levy Increase & Market Value Chancies 2016 2017 Taxable Taxable 2016 2016 2017 2017 Market Market $ %Tax City Tax City $ %Classification* Value Value Change Change Rate Taxes Rate Taxes Change Change Single Family Residential $ 117,649 $ 126,260 $ 8,611 7.32%73.292 $ 862 74.243 $ 937 $ 75 8.71% Multi Family Residential $ 2,200,000 $ 2,400,808 $200,808 9.13% 73.292 $ 20,155 74.243 $ 22,280 $ 2,125 10.54% Commercial $ 1,700,000 $ 1,804,613 $104,613 6.15% 73.292 $ 24,370 74.243 $ 26,239 $ 1,869 7.67% Industrial $ 1,900,000 $ 1,936,431 $ 36,431 1.92% 73.292 $ 27,301 74.243 $ 28,196 $ 895 3.28% * 2016 Median Residential Estimated Market Value (Homestead) was $150,000 (Taxable Market Value $126,260). 2015 Median Residential Estimated Market Value (Homestead) was $142,100 (Taxable Market Value of $117,649). Multi Family Residential, Commercial, Industrial values reflect the average value from the Hennepin County Assessor's report. The hypothetical properties were assumed to increase in taxable market value at the same proportion of total taxable market value for that classification type. Tax rates and taxes include HRA amounts. Property Tax Changes (Based on 1%, 3%,5% and 7% Levy Increase) Estimated Market Taxable 2016 2016 2017 2017 Levy Market Value Market Tax City Tax City $ % Classification Increase Value*Exclusion Value Rate Taxes Rate Taxes Change Change Single Family Residential 1.00% $ 150,000 $ 23,740 $ 126,260 73.292 $ 925 70.155 $ 886 $ (40) -4.28% Single Family Residential 3.00% $ 150,000 $ 23,740 $ 126,260 73.292 $ 925 71.503 $ 903 $ (23) -2.44% Single Family Residential 5.00% $ 150,000 $ 23,740 $ 126,260 73.292 $ 925 72.852 $ 920 $ (6) -0.60% Single Family Residential 7.00% $ 150,000 $ 23,740 $ 126,260 73.292 $ 925 74.243 $ 937 $ 12 1.30% * Estimated Market Value does not reflect any change in market value from the previous year, this chart reflects a hypothetical property valued at $150,000 for taxes payable in 2016 compared to a hypothetical property valued at $150,000 in 2017. Projected residential property taxes based on the examples illustrated above, show the various impacts of changes in the tax rates and property taxes. At a seven percent levy increase a hypothetical property valued at $150,000 would see a $12 annual property tax increase (assuming this is no change in that properties market value). However, assuming a market value increase equivalent to the increase in the median value home ($7,900 in additional market value) that property would see a $75 annual property tax increase. For every one percent levy increase, a $150,000 residential property will increase in increments of approximately $9 in annual property taxes. !iiiss!oii: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe coinnwniti' that enhances the qualiti' of life and preserves the public trust 9 MEMORANDUMai [I] 1I fl .COMMISSION WORK SESSION City Council/Commission Considerations/Work session Objectives: This evening staff is seeking City Council/Commission input on the following considerations: 1)We are operating under the assumption that we currently have the necessary major programs in place and our 2017 budget requests will continue to provide the services needed, with additional enhancements that include proposed changes to Fire Department staffing, Information Technology staffing, an additional Police Sergeant, increased funding for the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance, and expansion of Mobile Recreation programming as we work towards our strategic goals. Does City Council/Commission agree with this assumption? 2)A preliminary review of the 2017 budget, based on departmental requests, would require a levy increase of approximately 7.06 percent to maintain and enhance City service levels, provide additional revenue to pay for the debt service related to 2016 neighborhood infrastructure replacement, and move toward the achievement of our Strategic Priorities. Description $ Amount Levy Impact % Debt Service $225,547 1.47% I n fl ati on *57,371 0.37% Increase for Operations 802,550 5.22% ReguesredLey $1,085,468 7.06% *Inflation was calculated by multiplying the 2016 budgeted General Fund expenditures of$19, 783,159 by 0.29% (State and Local Government price deflator through June 2016). What is the maximum levy adjustment that City Council/Commission would like to see proposed? Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe comnnui,zitv (11(11 enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust 10 LLL1 U L I U (I [[IL 1 (D) r U H1 [Lft:LI U U(1 (00) -- ( ,')Li L LLLJ (L (I- lvn) 1 ) çd))1c? :(i (O '( ';I,) HJ)----I-C)) (U)- (gb)(U)()(5)- iI)()'(ç))M (U) (fl)():(0) 0)))(L)--:b)(i1 y (it)>) ,o) 'T (U) ;() fo)L7.)(i) (C) -(( ) :(1 (ib) (05 h--:°) (i b)(U)(i b) o)o)c (0)©:ii(b )--L¼(Lx,( ) $ t li ;;; LJ Co0D) D) 4-a W00 CO Cl) CO 0 0) ci)0(1) 0) Cl)CO ij^uJ Cie5: LU 0 ,: LU ZY 0 Co I- (N: I N (N EM I Liti I 7 ,/ /Y 1 LU // I LfLI IL Li L!Li 88888888800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0d c d d d d d d0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 03 N kD Lfl i1 (0 (N —4 -.-- o - co ajE0U ci) cic E LU 0 ci)EE 0 cotrl- LI 0 —c ci) E UC I- ciiU i (ci N- N 'a-I a) CD U- t 0 I-) a a) a)U E • LU ko LIO (1) rJ 0 a) U Ln a) +CD E co a) C -o ij CD U cfl cDrJ Uia) Ca)'-C -Jto C CD Ca) U 1IL[I lff--A [iLl 111 Ll I () () (L j[ILfj (z 1. J i ----7 / /Y o 0 0 0 CD 0 08888888 8 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N CD If) I- cfl NW-1bO UE bo —J 0 wI 0 C0 CD TL3I ti C0 m C fl ftl ot 1-0 'pci' C'. CN0LnJ1 co (i (?) ri IL (i [LII UrirJ0.al r'J 0 I-0 UD - IL 0 I- UCTI t; rJo I-0- U di 03 0 N Utio to om t; C3 C4 Ln M eq lit LLi1 H LI IT H LI rAm ot:; C3 o CD 0 0 O 0 0 0It)0 U)0 It)_i.0rIr-1J 11) fiLl U ( IJuII [L - 00 EoU •1-U)D -- -o 0 .4- 0 0(N C)(N '0 '0 ol (N'0 o a c)0 0oa0100o00000dN: C)L()LO LO IC CN IC (N (N (Y) o (N CV)clq 10 o 0 Ol 0 0o00000 Ol 00 (N N 0 ol IC)IC)0 (N(N ••IC) Co (N CO ol 00 (N a)-.4- WE U) 0 4 I j CD III Lf (y) 0 a) -a >. 4-I U a. Ux _c aod I 41 0 OR CA CL IR OO\ Lis L Q)w (U 0 4-I U(U0.(UU a U Q) '0E 4 0a) 00 00 0 0 0 0C C CC C C CD CDIf) C -(TI-(t D N IfflDN 0N DN m DN N 0N 0 0N 00N 0000N c'J N Ii A [1 LL ci) ci)U ci)(I) .1--oci)0 -oci) .5 0ci)Cie U)ci) Cci)>ci) 0•1— .4— ci)00 C0 z U) U)ci)-J ci) -aI)ci) z >> -I x 0. 0I- >4- 0amCL OR 0 U,-C1)Uamw 'I)0ci) U > C)(N SO(N 10 CN U)ci) U) ci).0..4 ><•LU •ci) a -l-U)ci)•0ci) LL0 ci) ci)0 CV)10 10C4 LC) .LC) P%i (V) coo' "•Ifl imL ) co i H IF [L iLl1 ftiILiil ( c'1 0 01 01 -o.N 0'1•(N 0 sq c L(O I CV) CN LO ^10 LO H NNI Ln r74 IN 0^1 co o 01 0 -0 001 LqI MILO 0 LO I coLO00 CN C3 _a > Ii I 0 O Cie I Li ( , ( V) tSJ .L±J F [Li LI 0 N 0O (N 0_ C U o -L() L( C IC) IC) 0 (Y) (N 10 (N (N (N • • (N IC) C) 00 N (N 0 (N 0 LC) 0•O O (N (Nc co cx IC to IC) IC cOl IC) co '—I(NLO co cx . (N (V)'0101NO C IC aff >., > •ci)4 > -J ':1)-J >' >-o -I--ci) _ (Do I 1 _ ILI ilfll l >0)-J ci) ci) >0) -I- ci)0 >ci)-J >•1- U a•1- E2 >ci) Cie -J I IC) IC) (NNi 'oLO 0(N 0 IC) •0 Ol N 0 (Ncv) L() Iq c) 0 I MW0 LO (N N 0(No LO LO 10 ci,) [IL1 ) [1 fHl () L[L'II (0(N 0 rI [LfLf (I- [FIll L Li / LLiIL (Li2 N•HooN N LO I t N Ho•CV) LO 00 Cl L N C1)N •'O N N co 00 ol L() O CV)I- 0 10 00 N N 00 00 ol LO £!^ E2 34-IT I- IFI- cp4 ()l LII i It LLL!J (/tL.j {LU 1 i) (!\ (n ILILJj1 (i f( ((ri ///)) [L. IL. J CY)N (N N L() CV) co CV) NLC) O CV) (1)0 N(N (N LO Ol CV) CV) CV) (N Cl)'-0 ol 0L() O (N O Cl) O cc sO0 OD 10 cc LO cc (N cc O L() L() (N(N (N N L(, O CV) cc 00 0000 -000 0 00 00L()0 0 0 II0a) I I D1Lt)D- a)> C C C Ca)ci)ci)OsON a •;a)•;;ci)a)00C'4 UC-4 0 ccN L() F1 1 4 uJO i^ 0Dco co (N IN 0(N 2 D U) ro o 1)D -CA.2 D 1V).2OU) o LL ><0 ° 1) IO A •!- Ii)U=O PA--LU5:CieLU> >a)1 CD0 E 4- >4) 0-c CN cr ce V^ c'J Cl) [Lii i y) [Li LJ I- ON (C) itL (0))) T,- () ILL (j (i)(ib)(dL)1 (c?) (d()L (j (f) Lc)(cI (C (j (LI (C (GL -) (Icoo'rkip)i5 ii (C))