The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-01-18 RESOLUTION NO. 01-18 A Resolution of the City of Sebastian, Florida, accepting the 2000 apportionment plan of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization. WHEREAS, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was established pursuant to an interlocal agreement executed on Apri112, 1993, and filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County MPO is the designated and constituted body responsible for the urban transportation planning and programming process for the Vero Beach Urbanized Area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 339.17(3)(a), the Florida Statutes, the Indian River County MPO adopted an apportionment plan in 1993 which defined the voting membership of the :MFO Board; and WHEREAS, Section 339, Florida Statutes provides for periodic review and revision of the l\1PO's adopted apportionment plan; and WHEREAS, recent population estimates show that the City of Sebastian's population has increased such that the City warrants an additional voting member on the MPO Governing Board; and WHEREAS, the MPO prepared a 2000 apportionment plan which provides for an additional City of Sebastian voting member to reflect Sebastian's growth and provides for an additional Board of County Commissioners voting member to maintain an equitable geographic-population ratio as required by 339, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the MPO, at its January 10, 2001, meeting, approved its 2000 apportionment plan which provides for an eleven voting member MPO Board with one additional City of Sebastian representative and one additional Board of County Commissioners representative; and WHEREAS, pursuant to state requirements, each general purpose local government within the MPO area shall accept or reject the MPO's 2000 apportionment plan by resolution. . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. That the City of Sebastian accept the MPO's 2000 apportionment plan which provides for an eleven voting member MPO Board with an additional voting representative :from the City of Sebastian and an additional voting representative :from the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners; and Section 2. That three originals or certified copies of this resolution will be provided to the Indian River County MFO. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upo~~op,tion. The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Councilmember t::>I.oMp, The motion was seconded by Councilmember ....l1~Ulc..!rg It- and, upon being put into a vote, the vote was as follows: f!'jrL- ; The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this ;2 g~ day of ~2001. U CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA Mayor Walter Barnes Councilmember Joe Barczyk Councilmember James Hill Councilmember Ben Bishop Councilmember Edward Majcher By: W~ 'vJ en ..~ Walter Barnes, Mayor AT~T: ~tnl1e - - Sally A. M o,CMC City Clerk (SEAL) Approved as to form and legality for reli y e Ci f Sebastian only: \ Richard Stringer City Attorney 't I I I INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MPO 2000 APPORTIONMENT PLAN . Indian River County MeQi ~~- ~-= ~'-~~~ Indian River Connty Metropolitan Planning Organization (Vero Beach Urbanized Area) ~/ - /-- - . . dLI..;,' /~{(t lJ6hn W. Tippin. 1. Chairm'n ADOPTED: (kr..td1-t1 /(J ~. )C J -I (' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY \IETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGA1~IZATION 2000 APPORTIONME:-'l PLA...." BACKGROU~l> Based upon 1990 Census data, the City ofVero Beach and the densely populated land surrounding the City was designated as a Census urbanized area. \Vith a total 1990 population of 64.707, the urbanized area includes three general purpose local goveIT'.J11ems. These are: the City ofVero Beach. the Town of Indian River Shores, and the Board of County Commissioners (unincorporated area). While the Vero Beach Urbanized Area includes only those areas in and around the City of Vero Beach. the area expected to be urban \\ithin twenty years includes much of the land ,....ithin the County east of 1-95. Considered as the transitioning urbanized area. that portion of the County includes four of the county's five incorporated areas. The only municipality ,....ithin the CmIDty which is not ""r1thin the transitioning urbanized area is the City of Fellsmere. As per the requirements of 23 USC 134( c) and 23 CFR 450.308, the metropolitan (PL) area shall at a minimum include the existing urbanized area and the area expected to become urbanized '....ithin twenty years. According to federal regulations, the PL area may include all or part of a county. Accordingly, the metropolitan (PL) area boundary was established pursuant to those requirements. As established, the metropolitan (PL) area includes all land v..ithin the transitioning urbanized area as well as the City of F ellsmere, the area around the City of F ellsmere, and a corridor along CR 512 extending from the transitioning urbanized area boundary to the City of Fellsmere. DESCRIPTION The lvfPO (PL) area is depicted on Map I. As sho'WTI on that map, the MPO area includes only the easternmost portion of the county, comprising approximately 25 percent of the land in the county. While the MPO area incorporates only 25 percent of the county's land area. it includes virtually all of the county's population. According to the 1990 Census. the County's 1990 population was 90.208. Of that number. 64.707 were within the Census urbanized area. Most of the land outside of the metropolitan area boundary is lUldeveloped marshland, agricultural land. or natural areas, with only scattered homesites, farms and ranches. For this reason. it is assumed that the entire County population is v..ithin the metropolitan area boundary. Besides showing the MPO boundary, Map I also depicts municipal boundaries as well as County Commission district bolUldaries. The 1990 population for each of these areas is also shown on the map. As indicated, all five of the county's municipalities are \\ithin the metropolitan (PL) area. The five incorporated areas are: City of Vero Beach. City of Sebastian. Town of Indian River Shores, City 1 of Fel1smere. and Town of Orchid. Of these. Vere Beach is the largest: it is also the County seat. With a 1990 population of only 10. the Town of Orchid is the smallest. Table 1 identifies 1990. 1995, and 1999 population for the County and each of the municipalities. Besides size, there are other differences among the county's municipalities. Probably the most significant are geography and affluence. Both the Town of Orchid a.."ld the TO'Wll of Indian River Shores are located entirely on the barrier island. These communities have limited transportation facilities \vithin their jurisdictions, v.ith SR AlA being the only state maintained roadway \\ithin the two communities. Both to'W115 are predominately residential, with only minor retail conunercial uses, and both have affluent residents and high median family incomes. Vero Beach is not only the largest municipality in the county; it is also the most diverse. Including both mainland and barrier island areas. Vere Beach has significant residential and non-residential areas. \Vhile almost built-out the City has a significant amount of redevelopment activity. Various state roads (SR 60, SR AlA, US 1 J. non-state anerials, a limited puolic transponation system, a public use airpon, and the railroad constitute the major components of the transponation system \\ithin the City. Both Sebastian and Fellsmere are completely mainland communities. Fronting on the Indian River Lagoon. Sebastian is the larger of the two, and the fastest growing of the county's municipalities. With more than 10.000 vacant platted lots. Sebastian is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate. Sebastian has a public use airport and a ponion of US 1 within its boundaries. FeIlsmere is the only municipality located west ofI-95, and the only municipality without any state roadways 'Within its boundaries. 1993 APPORTIONMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES Section 339.175, Florida Statutes identifies MPO apportionment requirements. Of these requirements, the three most important are: the size requirement; the proportionality requirement; and the requirement that (with minor exceptions) only elected officials of general purpose local governments may serve on the MPO Policy Board. When the MPO was formed in 1993, an apportionment plan was developed in accordance with Section 339.175, F.S. The development of the apportionment plan involved an alternatives analysis regarding the number and geographic distribution of the MPO Board members. In order to provide for a manageable governing body in relation to the relatively small population included 'Within the ~PO, alternatives were considered which limited the size of the MPO Policy Board to 7, 8, or 9 members. In assessing the board membership alternatives, a major consideration was the proponionality requirement. From a proportionality perspective, the most equitable alternative in terms of population and geographic representation was found to be the nine member option. The nine member option, which was subsequently adopted, consisted of an MPO Policy Board with four County Commissioners, two Vera Beach City Councilmen, one Sebastian City Councilman, one Fellsmere City Councilman, and one Indian River Shores Town Councilman. Besides those voting members. three nonvoting members were appointed to the MPO Board. These were representatives of the Town of Orchid, the Indian River County School District (IRCSD), and Florida Department 2 of Transponation (FDOT) District Four. With this option. the unincorporated County representation (based upon the four County Commission representatives) was close to the unincorporated proportion of the total County population. Another advantage of this alternative was that the smaller municipalities. \'vith the exception of the Tov.n of Orchid, had direct representation on the MPO Board. Each of the other options considered resulted in inadequate representation on the :\tfPO Board for the smaller municipalities. While the seven member option would have included the three smallest municipalities (Town of Indian River Shores, City of Fellsmere, and Tov.n of Orchid) with unincorporated residents and provide them representation through County Commission representatives, eight and nine member alternatives would have assigned a shared representative for the three smallest municipalities. Because of the dissimilarities among these municipalities. it was determined that a shared representative approach would not be feasible. After careful consideration, it was determined that all municipalities except Orchid should have voting representation on the ~O Board. \\tnen the initial MPO apportionment plan was developed in 1993, an important consideration was whether the IRCSD could be represented as a voting member of the MPO Policy Board. Although representatives of the general purpose local governments within the MPO area agreed that the IRCSD should have voting representation on the MPO Board, FDOT disagreed. According to FDOT, Chapter 339, F.S. specifically listed criteria for MPO membership and that criteria would not allow a school board to have voting representation on an .MPO Board. 1993 APPORTIONMENT PLAN Table 3 depicts the MPO Policy Board struCture established by the 1993 Indian River County MPO apportionment plan. As indicated in that table, the MPO Policy Board had nine voting members. These included four County Commissioners. two Vero Beach City Councilmen. one Sebastian City Councilman, one Fellsmere City Councilman, and one Indian River Shores Tov.n Councilman. The YfPO Board also included as nonvoting members one representative of the Tov.'D. of Orchid and one representative of the IRCSD. As structured, the MPO Board had direct representation from five of the six general purpose local governments v..ithin the .MPO area. Only the Town of Orchid, which had a 1990 population of 10, did not have direct representation on the MPO Board. 1999 APPORTIONMENT PLAN A..~AL YSIS Since 1993, FDOT's position regarding school board voting representation on MFO Policy Boards has changed. For example, FDOT, in addressing initiatives by the Broward 11PO to add a school board member to its MPO Policy Board, has interpreted Chapter 339, F.S. to allow school board representatives to serve as voting members of MPO Boards. This is based on Chapter 339's provision that representatives of agencies operating major modes of transportation may have voting representation on JvfPO Boards. and a recognition that school boards are agencies operating a major mode of transportation. As written, Chapter 339.175(2)a, F .S., states that an .MPO "may include, as part of its apportioned voting members, an...official of an agency that operates or administers a major mode of transportation." In Indian River County, the Indian River County School District (IRCSD) provides 3 a greater number of trips over a greater number of miles \\1th a larger t1eet than any Ou,1er transportation provider, including the County's public transponation provider. Unlike the County, municipalities. and other major transportation providers, such as the Indian River Transit public transportation system and the County's three public airports. all of which have direct or indirect voting representation on the MFO Policy Board, the IRCSD does not have direct or indirect voting representation on the NfPO Board. Although adding an IRCSD voting member to the MPO Board does not affect the population or percent distribution of the MPO's 1993 apportionment it does require updating the MPO's original 1993 apportionment plan because it changes the structure of the MFO Board. In 1999. an apportionment plan, providing for the addition of an IRCSD voting member to the MPO Board and containing the information required in an apportionment plan by Chapter 339.175. F.S.. was developed by the MPO. Table 4 depicts the Policy Board structure established by the Indian River County MPO's 1999 apportionment plan. The 1999 plan differed from the 1993 plan by the addition of one voting member from the IRCSD. As a comparison of Table 4 and Table 3 indicates. providing the IRCSD 'With voting representation on the MPO Policy Board does not affect the population or percent distribution of the MPO's 1993 apportionment. This is because the IRCSD serves the entire County rather than a geographic subarea. Therefore, the geographic population and the percent representation served by the !\1PO Board's 1993 members did not change with the 1999 apportionment plan. 1999 APPORTIONMENT PLAN APPROVAL In accordance \"\-ith Chapter 339.175, F.S. and FDOT policies and procedures, the MFO unanimously approved the 1999 apportionment plan at its regularly scheduled February 10, 1999 meeting. Once approved by the MPO, the 1999 apportionment plan was then accepted by resolution by four of the County's five municipalities as well as by the Board of County Commissioners and the IRCSD. The apportionment plan was subsequently transmitted to FDOT District Four,FDOT Central Office, and .to the Governor's Office for review and fmalapproval. In February, 2000, the Governor's office .. notified the MFO that the MFO' s 1999 apportionment plan was approved. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT APPROVAL Subsequent to the Governor's office approval of the MPO's 1999 Apportionment plan, MFO staff coordinated with FDOT staff to revise the Indian River County MFO Interlocal Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement is the formal document establishing the MPO. Tbis agreement must be revised and then re-executed by all parties whenever there is a change in the structure (voting membership) of the MPO. These parties consist ofFDOT, all general purpose local governments within the MFO area, and any non-general purpose local government MPO members (IRCSD). Because of policy issues relating to certain Interlocal Agreement provisions, FDOT did not provide MFO staff with a revised lnterlocal Agreement until July, 2000. After receipt of the agreement, MPO staff made minor revisions and transmitted the interlocal agreement to all affected parties for adoption and execution. Subsequently, all parties except the City of Vero Beach executed the revised interloca1 agreement. The City of Vera Beach declined to sign the interlocal agreement 4 because of the City's opposition to the Indian River County School District having voting membership on the MFO board. Because federal regulations mandate that the census designated central city within an MPO area be a signatory to the imerlocal agreement, the City of Vero Beach's refusal to execute the revised imerlocal agreement effectively voided the revised interlocal agreement and the approved and adopted 1999 Apportionment Plan. Consequently, the original apponionment plan and interlocal agreement remain in effect, and the MPO Board consists of nine voting members. 2000 APPORTI01\MENT PLAN The purpose of the 2000 Apponionment Plan is to add another voting representative from the City of Sebastian to the tvfPO board. This is to reflect Sebastian's grO\\th since adoption of the 1993 Apportionment Plan. Currently, Sebastian. with one voting ~1PO representative, has a population comparable to Vero Beach which has two voting members on the 11PO board. · ANAL YSIS Table 1 illustrates population changes from 1990 to 1999. As shown in that table, total county population increased by almost 20,000 persons between 1990 and 1999. That increase, however, was not evenly distributed among the local governments in the county. Particularly important is the change in percent of total county population between Vero Beach and Sebastian from 1990 to 1999. Because the 1990 population estimates were the basis of the 1993 Apportionment Plan and because 1999 population estimates show significant changes between Vero Beach and Sebastian in terms of each city's percent of total county population. it is appropriate to revise the MFO's voting structure to reflect those changes. .As indicated in Table 1, the 1999 population distribution is essentially the same as the 1990 distribution except for the Cities of Vero Beach and Sebastian. Other than those two cities, all of the other jurisdictions had a 1999 percent of total county population figure within 0.2 percentage points of their 1990 figure. Between 1990 and 1999, both Vero Beach and Sebastian experienced significant changes in their percent of total county population. Interestingly, the percent of total county population reflected by the combined total populations of Vero Beach and Sebastian stayed essentially the same from 1990 to 1999. In 1990, their combined populations represented 30.5% of the county's total population, whereas in 1999 it represented 30.6% of the county's total population. While there was essentially no change between 1990 and 1999 in the percent of total county population represented by the combined populations of Vero Beach and Sebastian, there was a significant change in the two municipalities individually. In 1990, Vero Beach's population constituted 19.2% of the county's total population, while in 1999 it constituted only 16.3% of the County's total population. On the other hand, Sebastian grew from only 11.3 % of county population in 1990 to 14.3% in 1999. Even more important than the fact that Sebastian's population has grown from slightly more than half of Vero Beach's population in 1990 to almost equal to Vero Beach's population in 1999 is the fact that Sebastian's population is projected to double in the next twenty-five years, while Vero 5 Beach.s population is projected to increase orJy slightly during that period. AL TERNA TIVES As indicated in the above analysis, there is sufficient justitication to add a Sebastian member to the :\'1PO's governing Board at this time. Since Sebastian and Vero Beach now have comparable populations. and since adding another Sebastian representative to the MPO Board would give each two voting representatives, this change to the :\1PO Board's structure would be consistent with the requirement of Chapter 339, F.S. that MPO apportionment be "determined on an equitable geographic-population ratio basis." .-\dding another Sebastian representative to the :\'fPO governing board. however. affects the representation of other MPO member local governments. particularly Indian River County. Currently, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. which represents the unincorporated county's population, has four members on the nine member ?v1PO governing board. While those four voting members represent 44.6 percent of the board, that is significantly less than the 64.3 percent of the total county population represented by unincorporated COWlty residents. The addition of another Sebastian representative to the board ,\ithout any other changes would reduce the county's voting representation from ~.6 percent to 40.0 percent. making the board's representation less equitable on a geographic-population ratio basis. Table 5 identifies the existing population and percent of total county population for each local government in the county, as well as the existing MPO governing board structure (1993 Apportionment). Also shown in Table 5 are three options for adding another Sebastian representative to the :MFO governing board. Two of those options would create an?v1PO governing board of ten members, while the third would create a board with eleven members. One of the ten member options involves simply adding another Sebastian representative to the current nine member board. With this option, the governing board structure would remain the same .... except for the additional Sebastian representative. As shov.'Il in Table 5, this option would reduce the unincorporated county's representation on the board from 44.5 percent to 40.0 percent. Since the unincorporated county population constitutes 64.3 percent of total county population based on 999 population estimates, this option is less equitable than the current board structure on a geographic-population ratio basis. The second 10 member option involves adding another Sebastian representative as well as another Board of County Commissioners representative. This option, however, involves combining the Indian River Shores and Fellsmere representatives into one representative that would be shared by Indian River Shores, Fellsmere, and Orchid. From a geographic-population ratio basis, this option is more equitable, providing the unincorporated county v.ith fifty percent representation compared with 44.5 percent at present. While Indian River Shores, F ellsmere. and Orchid would have ten percent representation on the MPO board \\ith their shared representative compared to the 5.1 percent of total county population represented by their combined populations, this option would eliminate direct representation for Indian River Shores and Fellsmere. The final alternative is an eleven member option. This option involves adding two additional members to the current nine (voting) member ~fPO Board. Besides increasing Sebastian's voting 6 representation by adding an additional member. :..Ills option also involves adding an additional Board of County Commissioners member. As sho\\TI in Table 5. this option would provide both Vero Beach and Sebastian with two members each: it would provide both Indian River Shores and Fellsmere with one member each: and it would provide the Board of County Commissioners 'With five members. Although this option provides less voting representation for unincorporated county residents than the second ten member option. there are several advantages to the eleven member option. First. it provides for an additional Sebastian representative. Second, it maintains direct representation for Indian River Shores and F ellsmere. Finally. it increases unincorporated county representation from 44.5 percent at present to 45.4 percent, making unincorporated county representation slightly closer to its 64.3 percent of total 1999 county population. · 2000 ADOPTION On January 9. 2001, the Indian River County ~fPO adopted the eleven member option as the 2000 Apportionment Plan. This option adds two members to the nine voting member board established by the 1993 Apportionment Plan. One of the 1'\'.0 new voting members is a second City of Sebastian representative. while the other new member is a fifth Board of County Commissioners representative. Table 6 depicts the MPO Board structure established by the 2000 Apportionment Plan. A.s indicated in that table, the 2000 Apportionment Plan is consistent with the requirement that the lvfPO be apportioned on an equitable population-geographic ratio basis. F~lT ~~GRMl<I'S\AWTMN'NOOO APl"TMIIT Pl.AH.W1'O 7 <ill ~ - ~ ... .5 - - :1:1 ~ ~ ... .Q .s ~ Eo- - !! = c:. Q " - J "1 ~ M ~ - "1 II'! ~ ~ - - ~ ..,. N N ~ - - - ~ I tn =" t'-- t'-- = = - N t'-- = = =" = tn ~ !! 1Il =" t'-- t'--.. ~ - = = ~ r-: v) N N t'-- .... - - - " ) Vl ~ - ~ "1 ~ "1 ~ M - - t'-- M N N ~ - ~ - - - Q.o t/') =" =" I - ~ - - ::lO =" ~ - -.c ::lO ::lO =" Vl Vi - N.. -.c ~ "l ~ N ..; - r-: M N N \Q :; - - - ) "1 II'! ~ - II'! = ~ =: ~ = =" - N N ~ - - - = =" =" I - t/') :!2 = -= QO =" = t'-- -= = t'-- r-- - - M N.. N.. - - .. N .. QO = r-: = N N t/') =" - - <ill ~ Q .c rJ1 ~ C ~ ;> - :2 = - ~ = ~ = ~ ::: ":I Q ~ - ... ~ ~ ~ .. ... - . , .- .S C - 'wi ..... - ~ - ~ :1:1 ":I l'Il ~ ~ Q ~ - ..... - ~ ~ .Q = ~ -' Q. ;> ~ ~ - ~ '- ~ :i: ;;> ~ '- Q Q Q '- '- '- Q - ~ = Q Q = - .5 ~ .... .... $ .... S = .- .-:: ":I - - Q ;::l = U U Eo- U E- - =" =" =" - .: '-' ... - :; '" ~ :::: '" '" ~ ; = 1 .: ..~ ... .... - - E = ~ - 'i:; -= :. .... = .f' '" ... ~ -; ;:;l <II = <II = ~ u ~ - .... o - - ~ - t:: ell Co ~ Q Xl - ~ Q 00 ]: % i - - ;- :::i ;> ~ Q ~ = = :: - :; u ~ ;. 0. .. o o o ... / !; ~ '" 5 ?' ~ "' " / i' ~ . " . . :> / ., ~ li. .: . > . Q >. ~ ~ o i ~ '" -" .. = ell ~ ... - = as' <01 '" ~ 5 - - U .... = i- - = = U ... ~ ;> 2 - ~ 5 t:: ell Q, ~ Q ~ ;:;l .:! 1 - ;.; ~ <01 '" :; r.n - ". - ~ ~ - - .., - ~ ~ - - - - .... ,... -' \.) ~ u > .- x - - eo: .- ~ c: ~ ~ ~ < - - ~ - - C 0... ~ c: o .- "'0 c: ~ - ~ - =' c. C 0.. o 0-. 0-. - - - - - - - - - c: c o~ "'.? '" - - ..c r--." ~ ::u ~ ~ ......~, Lor. ~ 0::':::"; ~. n:l ~ ..... < o C~ ~e Ol~ -E ~ =:.:---- 1'"">:"'<- r- r- ~ c: o :I) rt'J " - ~ ... .. , .. - -::- ...:. - -. ...c r- C:"I C"l cc ,-'i .-I ~ c... ~.c "",,'1:1 Ue; 41e e II :Cl~ ~O a; ::l a) Ql e'1:lCt~ 0 O~fl.c; Q. eec~~ 0 ~ > (/)u.. OS g 0=..0 c: => E U E "" 0;; u- o >. - c: ::l o U , . . .,-C'/(").\() o ~ ~ I , , , , , , I , I . I , , , , , . , , , , , I I . , =- 1.. , I I , . , or- ' I · . ' , , , . I ' , , , I , . , , , I , . , I , , , , , . , , , . . . I · , . . .~----,' , .'---..... , -,r- .,. , , '~ , , r , . ' , ''-______ __,J , , , --- , , ~.~----,--~ , ~ .~ ' , I.' , , \ / , , , , , , , , , , , , , I' I , , - - .....:.. I .' . .. w..s ............ ~ ~- -.........-, I cr) -,-..----~~__J , I , , , /'" ~ .. -~, \ , .2j _____z-_ "-: $2 ...:; M - - lI'i M . - - - - II) M - - C'\ an M - - = II'! M - - - = . . "!!' M - - - - ~ M - - - C'\ ~ M - - - = = V'l II'! If? = an M M M - - - QO ~ M - - = - .", M = r--: ~ ~ - V'l M - r-- ~ M - = V'l M ~ V'l "1; - = ~ ~ - N - - M - '" - - QO V'l = ~ :lQ :!\ = r- ..:; = r- r- = M - M r-t r-t - - = ~ r-: = ~ C'\ V'l - - M M :Il Q"l !: - .c :J'J I. Q"l - , ~ .. """ Q"l ~ = - "0 ;.I ~ = I. := Q"l .... .- ;.I 0 - - - .S .- .- ~ :Il = ~ =- I. = ~ "0 ~ I. = I. ~ = - ..... ~ c. ;.I ;.I - Q"l "'" I. > 'J:J '- ~ '- .C> = '- '- = '- = = ;.I = = = = = = .5 ,., >. ~ >. ~ = - - ~ - = u a = .- = u ;::l Eo- U Eo- -- -- ~ z ~ u ::: =- ~ '" ~ :; ~ :; ~ z ~ c.; ::: ~ ~ c. -- :; ~ ZI :E ~ ... Z ~l ~ u :I: :z:: ;.I ~ .~ ~ Q. - - - ~ .~ = I. ~ ;.I ~ - - < - ~ = z ;.I ~ N S U Q"l - er:: . :E - .::: r-- ~ ~ - i Eo- I. = C. C. ~ < ~ ~ :'\ :'\ Eo- - zZ 0 o~ .. - _u :; ~er:: = <~ =- ~c. ~ ;:l....J S~ Q.o Eo- ;; ;i; r ~ '" ~ ~ ::! " r ~ ~ i e l' l I J - M ~ ..;j CQ < Eo- OZ :..< :;~ >c- ....E- -z Z;~ ::l:; Oz Uo ===- ~E- >0:: C2~ zc.. << -M Q<:l'\ Z<:l'\ - - = =- .- "'" - .. ell- -;:; Co. o ~ :..c.. - - - 0: :.. ~ ~ II: ~ t - :: ~ - ~ - - - ~ <r. ~c. :.~ ~ .., - ~-;:; :'\ _.~ ~ - =- - - - ::E- ~ .:: - - = ~ ~ ..,. = I.C :lO =" ~ ..,. = a tr':,. QC M... t' t' -=... f"'!, - ~ ..,. = ... :::: - :lO - M M - = ~ '.:: M - - - V . M . . ..,. - - - Q,I ..,. M - - - :.. - ell '; ~ ..,. N - - - . ~ 0 l/'l N ~ l/'l ~ ~ ~ - M M ':::' I.C - - 0 l/'l = -= :lO =" ell t' I.C = - - M N t' t' 0 r.e ~ = M - M ... l/'l - - M rIl ~ = ,C> .c CI1 = a. = ~ = .c > U .. CJ = =' ~ ~ ~ a. 4J .~ C ~ ~ CQ - - ~ - ~ rIl :a c ~ a. = ~ ~ = a. ..Q C - =- 4J 4J - ~ ~ a. ;> r;n '- r.. WI = '- - 0 '- ~ ~ CJ = = = = = ,C> ,C> ~ >-. CII .. = = - u .. w ;:J U Eo- rIl ~ CII a. a. rIl 0 ~ a. .c = 4J CI1 CQ = = a. - C';j CJ - C .~ - > ~ g e ~ = ~ CJ = ~ a. = u e ~ .~ c ~ 1.0 CQ - .:! = CII a. = rIl .E > CIIU = = ~ 0 a. ..Q C > CJ ~ .. ,C> CJ - c::: = > r;n '- r.. = - - 0 '- CJ C = = 0 c = Q ~ = :au ,C> ,C> ~ >-. 0 - c- U U W - = Eo- - E 00( .~ ";l - - =. = 1.0 CIl = CII c.::::: it ~ ~ ~ ::! '" '" z ~ ~ ] ::l l e ! t Q ~ I SI ~ ..J ..... Z ..., Q., <: ~ ~ ..... Q,. ~. . r- ~Z Zt;r,J ..,. ~~ . , ..., ~ UZ - 0 .... ~- - ~ ~~ - ;>Q:: ~o -=- Z=- << -~ Q~ Z ~ - .... ;.I .:: - - .s 0"'" ::c.~ =:E'-I "'" ~ Q'tfr Q.,Q.=== - = 5 .S! \J - ~ ~ ~ O=Q. Q. ~ :E ~ c.- ~ ~ ::::'Q Eo- "= ;.I . _ C. = Q ;.IQ. ~ ;.10 =~ E:E = - = Q\=~ ~..g ~ =- c.:! Q Q c..Eo- ~ ~ ~ 00( \J"= .- ~ -=- c.= ~ ~ ~ ~ eJll. Q C. ~ ~ e",=== - = ~ 5 = ~ ~ ... Q e", ...,. - ~ Xl =" oK ...,. i: t'-- t'-- <: III ~ N~ f"i .... -.. ...,. ~ - ~ Z - N N - .... ~ - - =: = = -: - - - = = == == - - ...,. N .... .... .... .... ...,. N .... .... .... .... If'l N ""l If'l ..,. = ~ =' - M M = ~ .... - - If'l = ~ QO Xl ~ = r-- ~ = r-- r-- N .... tor) N f"i .... = ~ r-"' = M If'l - - N ~ rI) ~ - = .c .c rzl c - = ~ .c = .c ... c U \J C ;.;: ~ = ~ - ~ ~ .;! = - = c:.I - c:.I U - - - .:! 5 ~ In - - = ~ ~ l"Il ~ = - .Q = - ... c:. ~ c:.I - Q:j .- - ;> ':J'J. - ~ :z:: = - - = - = \J = = = = c >> >> :: .c .~ .- ":l C - - = .- U .- = ;;:J U Eo- U - l"Il ":l ~ - - :n = ~ - .c = '-I rzl == = - - C';; ~ C = .ra - ... = = 5 ~ c ~ ~ = ~ - = = c c:.I .;! C ~ U - U _ .... - - .! - ~ tcJ In C ... 'C = ~ ":l ..:a ~ - .Q C - .:: >> ~ - ... rI) ~ - ~ .- .- c=::: > ':J'J. - ~ :Z::Q = = - - = - =- ~ = = ;) c ;) ~ = :oU >> >> :: .c .- = - - ~.c c- .- U ;) U C \J - = U E- _rzl "; \J = ...;j .~ ~ .. - .E .: ;., ;;; ";j = .~ -= c. : II: 1.0 U ~ e Z CJ .:;. ~ =: - W g M - i> CJ ~ = ~ = e - U .l! CJ ~ - - - = ~ CJ ~ 3 '" CJ -= ~ ~ =-: CJ '" ::= - == CJ .....c "'" - .,.. '" ,,; ~Q = .-. e :: ~ ~ ~ v w :?; I:I.l ';J':J ~ CJ ;:) ~ :: = - ::l\ CJ ::l\ - e '" ~ = r II: - CJ ~ CJ - "- - .c ..:: ! -= ;:; ~ CJ CJ - ~ '" = =-: CJ .S: '" - "" :i =- t: - .. "" e :ii ~ ~ =- i ~ C. t:: I .: II: = i' - -= .S: l - :> = - oS :.; = ! -= c. I e z " " - :r.. -. - ;> - < z ::: - ~ , - -< ~ \r, z '-' ;;;oJ - , :; - - z .... -< .-., ~ 'wi - , - =: .-.. 'wi . - . - -< ~ - N .-., 'wi . - ~ s\ ;11 ! '!- ..,. NI - - \r, eel =' =' = -I ..,. -I -I - r.fl - ~ I ~ ~ I e - VI M MI - - = - :.I I :E - - I = - I '!- - - - = = -:. - - - N N - - VI '" I = i - .= = r.fl - - ,... ~ 5 ~ ~ = e .... VI M N - :.I I :; = - - ~ =: = ~ - :::: = :; - = :; - = - - - .... ..,. M N - - = '" - ~ = - = - = - ..,. M M - - - ~ :; - = VI ~ - - - l"'l C ~ = ~ . . = =" ~ = M - - - - ..,. M - - - =" e - c eD= .: ~ ~ - ~ r.fl = ~ ';::l Co ~ ~ Co e C'\ ..,. M - - - = -< ~ ~ = ~ = l"'l f'O'l 1""', VI ..,. M = ~ ~ ~ M .g = - N N = -= - .... - .! = Co C'\ = - r-- If') f' f' = = =- ~ It') M = = =" = = - ..,. ~ f'~ It') =" = r::\ = r-: r-- -= =" Eo- = l/'l N N - =" - f' - - - - :Il I ~ :.I - - .: r.fl ~ r.fl ~ Z .~ = S .:: 0 - rJj F = ~ = ~ u .. ~ -= Q2 ~ t;J = ~ ~ "C ~ J. :s! c ~ .:: = ~ CQ ~ c=: 0 - = - .:: s .:: ~ = go:: t;J ~ =- ~u ~ = "C ..:a ~ J. ... = ~ ~'- ~ .... - 0 t;J - ~ E'= :> \J':. '- r- '- ~ B"C - - ~ - ~ Q - = ~ c = = ; - = .- - .C> >. ~ ~ ~ = c ... - ~ = ~e. u c .- U Eo- U Eo- M i ~ ~ ! .. ~ ~ "5 ~ i ! ~ ~ ! .0 '" ... ...c I;;;l ..J = -< Eo- z -<: ..J Q., Eo- Z I;;;l .~ Z o - .... Q:: o Q., Q., < = = = N o =- ~ I = - "'1' N ~ .!! ~ :5 lI'i ~ - - - - Q., :Ie ~ ~ :: - - - ~ - - - = c:J = = .S: - I- - C- Co ~ < :.l = ..: - ojC oj< "' = - Ir. N N - - :: = - = - - = :.l N ::; = ~ ~ ,.., ,.., ~ II') ~ ,.., .S: ....; ..,i; .". N N ;j - - -= - - - ..:: = Co = Q., ~ ~ - ~ II') r- r- ~ ~ r- N = = = = = < <: - - II') ~ ~ r- ~ = II') = ~ r-" ...c ....... ....... Eo- = r: vi' N - z z - to- - - N - - - ;.. Q ;.. ow rr.J ... U - '- - c::: - - - - - - - - c:J - - .- - ... ~ ;tJ I- - - I- ~ rIl - F Q - = - - .: (I:l ;I) c:J Q - :Il I- - ;::: - .::: = = .. - Q 5 -= .c - r.n c:J f7:. - rr.J -- - I- - - - - :::: = ~ Co - ~ U .: > = - .. ~ >. ;..J c::: ~ = - = - - I- = = "C = :J .:: = c:J := u - c:J - I- 0 - = - - .:: 5 - ~ = (I:l "C '!i I- :; I- Q. I-U f: ~ ~ I- ~ Co = ~ =- c:J .Q = ~ 0 > c:J = c:J - 2 ... ~ E-= > r.n '- ~ '- - Co ="':1 -- '- = '- = ~ - = ;..J ;..J I- - = = = = i .. = = ~ - .:S I- = 0 0 ~ 0 ~ - .. = "':l = .~ = == u .. = u = = i: U ~- U Eo- Eo- ,.... - - '<:t Q .. ~ . ;; '" ~ :;> - z :.l i= OJ - I - - - - :.l - - - '" ~ 1 - - J' .. - E = Q > ~ I ] - . e - e - ~ z .. oj(