Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-08 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesRECEIVED TOW CLERK( REA0INIG. MASS. Reading School Building Committee Zoo lav I ~ A H: : 5 Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on October 8 2002, 7:30 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Alex McRae (AM) Rich Radville (RR) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) - Dennis LaCroix (DL) Ray Porter (RP) Bill Carroll (BC) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Staff) Dr. Harry Harutunian (Staff) p/t Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) Robert Peirce (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) RG asked the representatives from FAI to update the Committee on the enrollment projections introduced at the last meeting (10-01-02), the three options presented and on the expected presentations for the upcoming public input meetings. Regarding enrollments, Sid Bowen said that FAI had been going over the MISER projections and had been discussing certain technical aspects of them with AM. They still planned on using target enrollment numbers in the 1,320 to 1,350 ranges. One concern mentioned by AM was the effect of the change in eligibility dates for starting kindergarten that occurred some years ago (restricting the eligibility of children to start kindergarten to those who reach their fifth birthdays by August 31St rather than December 31S). MISER was asked to study that effect, but it was expected that it would not be significant enough to alter the target enrollment enough to require revisions to the designs in the options. Regarding the options, FAI passed out summaries of the attributes of each option that were intended to serve as handout materials for the upcoming public meetings (copy attached). He went over the handout's preamble that explained the search for three options to satisfy the Mass. Dept. of Education's requirements for funding as a "capital project" under the SBA program. He stated that while the SBA now allowed repair projects that did not address educational program updates, the charge FAI took from the Committee was to include programmatic changes. One requirement for SBA funding is that the School Committee must endorse the program of the finished school and FAI was proceeding under the assumption that such an Reading School Building Committee iWeeting; .Minutes ftorn October 8, 2002 endorsement would be forthcoming (it had been crafted in coordination with the staff and administration). Mr. Bowen read through the handout. He noted that there was no difference between the options in terms of educational program provided. There were differences in the phasing plans. However, the phasing for each scheme was predicated on the allowance of enough overlap time between phases to avoid major hold-ups in the construction schedule and to minimize the impact to the education process. The risk of delays in the completion of phases was highest in the renovation schemes (Opt.'s 1 and 2) while the least risk was found in the major addition scheme (Opt. 3). Hence, the overall times for the renovation options were seen to be the longest while the addition scheme, which used the new addition for swing space, was the shortest. - Copies of site plans and phasing plans for all three options were passed out to Committee members as well as more developed plans for Option 3 (copies attached). Robert Peirce went over updates to the site plans of all three options. He noted that the access roads to the neighborhoods had been eliminated in response to comments made by Committee members. Option 1 had expanded the parking behind the Supt.'s office and the Field House. Synthetic football and soccer/practice fields were included. A connecting road between the upper Oakland Road parking lots to the lots behind the Supt.'s office created a completed loop around the campus. A handicap-accessible pathway linked the lower parking with Bldg. C. - Option 2's site plan was very similar to Option 1's, with the only significant difference being a small entry plaza occupying the site of the demolished Industrial Arts wing. Option 3 employed increased parking areas in the present locations of the auditorium and cafeteria and in the current practice field north of the Field House (this lot would service field-related events). A synthetic practice field would be placed in an area now occupied by trees and the northern edge of the wooded section north of the tennis courts. The parking areas would not be connected to form a complete loop around the building, although they could be if deemed necessary. RR commented that while he did not have any alternatives in mind, he thought that creating a connecting road to Birch Meadow Drive across from the YMCA would be detrimental to the traffic congestion that is already a problem at that location. Sid Bowen responded that he understood the concern with that access road, but thought that perhaps it could be made a one-way drive to allow one access road in and another out of the campus, thus directing traffic through the high school grounds. He pointed out that with Birch Meadow School, Coolidge Middle School, the YMCA and the high school all in close proximity to each other, traffic was inevitable and would not likely be reduced in the future. Controlling its flow seemed to be the best approach and would be the subject of the traffic engineers' work. Option 3 tried to get as much off-street parking as possible in order to absorb the cars on-site rather than send them onto the neighboring streets. f ecr ira A. chool Building, Connnittee Meeting Alhlutes front October 2002 Frank Orlando recommended to FAI that they look into ways to funnel traffic away from the junction of Birch Meadow Drive and Oakland Road, since that location often becomes a bottleneck. FAI noted that until a scheme is chosen, the traffic studies and analysis needed to do that sort of design would not be done. - Observer Jackie Mandell asked if the school-owned property located on the southern side of Oakland Road could be used for parking. Mr. Peirce answered that uses for that property were investigated and it was found that no cost-effective use could be found for it due to its steep topography and composition (mainly ledge outcrops). RP asked if other access roads in and out of the site were being considered (as they once were), pointing out a connection to Hartshorn Street to the west as one example and to Whittier Road to the northeast as another. Mr. Bowen responded that they could consider it but they needed direction from the Committee, acknowledging that such a change would affect neighborhoods that previously had little traffic impact from high school traffic. RP thought such investigations should be made. RG thought that such possibilities should be pointed out to the general public. A general discussion ensued focussing on parking, with FAI stressing the advantages of off-street parking. Comments focussed on the value of adding angled parking on Oakland Road, terracing parking lots, restricting left-hand turns at intersections, making certain streets one-way, and past concepts for traffic control around the Birch Meadow complex. Many of the questions raised could only be answered with further traffic studies that would be done after a preferred scheme was chosen. Robert Peirce went over the expanded plans for Option 3, explaining the layouts of the new spaces between the existing 1969 portions of the existing building and the Field House. The new auditorium constructed to the south of the existing Lecture Hall / Media Center structures would have the art and music programs clustered around it on two floors. It would have a separate entrance and lobby to the south (where new parking areas would be). The mezzanine level over the present Media Center would be filled in to create business classrooms. Circulation for the new arrangement would be focussed along the central axis of the new connecting addition. There would be a large floor-to-floor height between the lowest level (essentially the level of the present Field House floor) and the next one (the level of the present Lecture Hall) which could accommodate a tall cafeteria space. PP asked how much square footage would be lost with Option 3 (from Options 1 and 2) and where it would come from. Mr. Peirce said a chart showing the lost spaces was being prepared. RP expressed reservations about focussing on Option 3 at the possible expense of the other options. He said he had contacted SBA Director Christine Lynch about Option 3 and was told that while Option 3 was not discouraged, the SBA had not had enough time to look at it closely to render further judgement (due to a pressing amount of other projects demanding their attention). In light of the uncertainty of that judgement, he felt that time should be invested in further developing and modifying the renovation options Reading, School Building Committee Ifeeting Alinutes ftonz October fi, 2002 (1 and 2), particularly in terms of reducing the phasing times. He wondered if putting the options before the public without such further development would be prudent. He asked for comments. Sid Bowen responded that in his discussions with Director Lynch, he thought the uncertainty she was stressing was whether or not any project submitted by Reading would be accepted this year, whichever option it was notwithstanding. He said the current state of the DOE budget was in flux and as a result, the number and category of school building projects expected to be accepted this year was not knowable, according to Ms. Lynch. Consequently, he perceived her reticence to take a position on any option stemmed from a desire not to promise something the SBA might not be able to deliver or would have to renege later on. The SBA has consistently expressed a desire to be kept informed of the directions the RMHS project was going to ensure that those directions satisfied DOE requirements and they have been updated regularly, according to Mr. Bowen. But until one option is chosen and developed sufficiently for SBA review, acceptance of any undeveloped option could not be known with assurance, he said. As to whether or not the public should be shown un-assured options, Mr. Bowen felt that they should be presented for feedback with an honest description of the SBA's involvement to date and the uncertainties under which they currently operate. AM said that at the present time, Option 3 was just being better understood and he thought the Committee had an obligation to perform due diligence on their review of all three options. RR stated that in his view, no option was being favored over any other and that each had its own issues to be digested compared and discussed. RP reiterated his desire to see more work done on improving the phasing of Option 1. RG reminded the Committee that Option 3 was conceived in the first place as a way to satisfy the expressed desire to keep the phasing time to around 30 months. Its latest development was performed to bring it up to the level of the other options, since it was only tentatively presented initially (FAI did not know how the Committee would react to it). Mr. Bowen said the main reason for the long phasing of Option 1 was due to the creation of temporary classrooms within the building. Perhaps some other means could be explored to take their place (such as temporary modulars). Observer Jackie Mandell asked about the timing of submitting options to the SBA for consideration. She asked if it was possible that the SBA would not know if Reading's high school project was accepted for reimbursement until February 2003 even if the preferred project was discussed initially with them by December 1 (as they require). Mr. Bowen said that such a scenario was possible given the uncertain progress of the SBA in handling all the work it needs to do. JS posed the question that if FAI was charged with reducing the phasing times of Options 1 and 2 by 3 months (say), what could be done to do it? Mr. Bowen replied that they would research the answer to that question and would reply at a later time, but the answer might well be that there is nothing realistic that could be done to achieve that goal. AM suggested that perhaps the renovation process itself could be intensified (in ways FAI had described for other school projects) to shorten the time frame. Mr. Bowen replied that they could go all the way to the extreme phasing solution of providing all the Reading School Building, Committee Meeting illinutes ftoni October 8, 2002 swing space in the form of temporary modulars and look at all scenarios in between the present one and the extreme one as a way of answering these questions. He cautioned about being optimistic about the results, however. RG cautioned FAI to be rigidly honest in their answers, remarking that many problems have arisen in other districts' school projects because the governing committee was told something they wanted to hear rather than what they needed to know (in terms of phasing). JS told the Committee of a suggestion put to him by a citizen who was getting familiar with the options which was to put the existing auditorium up for sale if Option 3 was pursued rather than demolish it. Sid Bowen remarked that the same question had surfaced in his office during the development of Option 3. While such a thing was possible, he said, it was rarely practicable due to the lack of a willing buyer or tenant. Saving it for some other community use was also more theory than practice due to the daunting task of finding community funding for care and maintenance of the abandoned space. RG asked if FAI was going to present the needs of the high school in terms of the existing conditions (for the upcoming public meetings). Robert Peirce said they could present the executive summary results as shown in the updated existing conditions report (copies distributed to Committee members). He said the summary listed needs in terms of "must do", "should do" and "would like to do" categories. He showed updated phasing boards, remarking that the estimated time per phase had been listed and that the straight sum of those times exceeded the listed total time given for each option due to overlap of the phases. A general discussion took place on the content and conduct of the public meetings scheduled to begin October 15t" at Parker Middle School. It was agreed that the SBC would describe the process by which the project had come to the options being considered and that FAI would then discuss the options themselves. Both the SBC and FAI would answer questions. It was agreed that topics such as site access, SBA involvement, space losses, etc. were to be part of the presentations. Observer Jackie Mandell asked if any of the options assumed that each teacher had a dedicated classroom and if the staff had been apprised of the options under consideration. BC said that the staff had been receiving updates about the options and noted the differences in allotted spaces between them. Dr. Harutunian and Sid Bowen explained that the State did not regard dedicated classrooms for all teachers as a necessity and would not evaluate the square footage deemed reimbursable on the basis of one classroom per teacher. Schools built with this criterion in mind would exceed the caps set by the State for reimbursement and the differences would have to be paid entirely by the districts building them. DL asked if the utilization of the buildings created by the three options could be quantified to better judge their relative values. Mr. Bowen said it would be difficult to do so since any space provided in any option would be used for a purpose that has value. Comparison with a wholly new high school would reveal that a new space for the target population would total around 250,000 sq. ft., which would be programmed for maximum utilization. Sid Bowen said that the cap for Reading's high school was nearly $50M based on last year's reimbursement numbers and would apply to any of the three options. This led RG to confirm with Mr. Bowen that all three options answer the programmatic, physical and educational problems of RMHS. li'eadhr q School Building Committee Meeting :llhlutes ftom October 8. 2002 Observer Jackie Mandell wondered if the rental space now available in the present high school was to be lost and could that income be made up in the new options. Mr. Bowen replied that the State would not reimburse new or renovated space used solely for rent (non-educational use) but space created for peak enrollments could be used for such a purpose in non-peak years. Observer Linda Phillips asked if extra reimbursable space could be provided for kindergarten or pre-K needs in the future. She was answered that the School Committee could only decide such a need, since the SBC does not determine educational program. The School Committee has not identified such a need. Observer Jackie Mandell commented that the Industrial Arts wing had the capacity for up to 10 classrooms (using the RISE provisions of Option 1 as an example) and thought such space should be held for future use. She also commented that the REAP program utilized high school students in an early education program. She felt that such programmatic use of rental spaces might justify reimbursement for them. Frank Orlando and Dr. Harutunian responded that the number of high school students involved in such programs was quite small and that the program also involved work at the elementary schools. RR reported that the two Town newspapers had expressed willingness to print the (color) plans that will be shown in the public meetings in their publications. Sid Bowen said his office could transmit the plans to the papers in whatever form was convenient for them. RR also suggested that the plans be put on display in a public place, like the Reading Public Library. Placing them on the Town's website was also deemed desirable. The Committee agreed and directed FAI to coordinate with those Town agencies to make the materials available. General discussions then took place concerning the effectiveness of video coverage of SBC meetings and presentations (generally positive). Observer Linda Phillips wondered what was found in the existing conditions report that suggested the need for demolishing any part of the existing school and building replacement space. She was informed that the driving factor in producing the demo/replacement options was to improve the phasing of the project. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the September 4, 2002 RSBC meeting. DL so moved and was seconded by PP. He called for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 10:10 pm). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee ie, Reading Memorial High School Three Options to Address Educational and Physical Facilities Needs The following pages summarize the financial, phasing and key completed project differences/attributes of the three options Flansburgh Associates has been asked to explore by the Reading School Building Committee. The charge to the Architect was to explore project approaches that would meet the Massachusetts Department of Education, School Building Assistance requirements for funding under the "Capital Project" reimbursement program. While the lists are not exhaustive, they highlight the differences among three options each conceived to deliver, at completion; a facility to serve the high school needs of the Reading Public Schools for the foreseeable future. The primary differences among these approaches are in the development of strategies to minimize the impact of so major a, construction project on the intensively used spaces of a public high school. The goal of each is to minimize the current impact while achieving the same final goal, a facility that meets all aspects of the educational program as determined by the Reading School Committee. The financial projections are preliminary, based on square foot costs and include a contingency to acknowledge this preliminary status. Each option is designed to meet the program for a projected enrollment of 1320 students. Flansburgh Associates, Inc. October 2002 OPTION 1 "Full Renovation" • 334,000 SF • 100% Renovated Space • 38-42 Months Construction - 7 Phases • $53 million total cost; $21 million Town of Reading cost • All elements of the educational program are included and in the proper relationship to other programs (Math is next to Science; Administration is adjacent to the main entry; etc.) • All spaces meet MAAB/ADA requirements for accessibility - except the former Media Center mezzanine, which is no longer used for program space. • Some renovated classroom spaces are up to 10% smaller in area than program goals. • Science Labs, Music, Art and Drama programs will be supported through new and or better facilities, furniture and equipment. • Media Center consolidates on one floor, improving control and use. • The Old Gymnasium houses all Physical education programs, both Men's and Women's PE locker rooms are built out on the first floor. The Field House becomes a Sports Team and Community -use facility. • Auditorium is upgraded for music and drama use as well as community uses. • Existing separate entry for Auditorium. will be retained and enhanced through consolidation of Arts and Music to adjacent space. Access control will be improved. • Field capacity will be substantially improved by incorporation of structured artificial turf on multipurpose field and one practice field. • Automobile access will be ,improved by incorporation of full loop around building and additional curb cut onto Birch Meadow Drive. Some additional parking will be created on site. • Educational program will continue to occupy the school during the construction. Multiple relocations for some classroom uses will be required during construction. • Administrative Offices will not have command of temporary entrance location during some phases of construction. • Inconvenience/distraction for teachers and students is high during construction. • Opportunities for Contractor to fail in meeting schedule are highest due to number of phases. OPTION 2 "Mostly Renovation" • 324,000 SF • 94% Renovated Space • 36-38 Months Construction - 6 Phases • $52 million total cost; $21 million Town of Reading Cost • All elements of the educational program are included and in the proper relationship to other programs (Math is next to Science; Administration is adjacent to the main entry; etc.) • All spaces meet MAAB/ADA requirements for accessibility except the former Media Center mezzanine which is no longer used for program space. • Some renovated classroom spaces are up to 10% smaller in area than program goals. • Science Labs, Music, Art and Drama programs will be supported through new and or better facilities, furniture and equipment. • Media Center consolidates on one floor, improving control and use. • Cafeteria (new construction) connects existing facilities and creates new school "Commons". • Access between original building and Media Center wing improved by new lower floor connection. • The Old Gymnasium houses all Physical education programs both Men's and Women's , PE locker rooms are built out on the first floor. The Field House becomes a Sports Team and Community -use facility. Auditorium is upgraded for music and drama use as well as community uses. • Existing separate entry for Auditorium will be retained and enhanced through consolidation of Arts and Music to adjacent space. Access control will be improved. • Incorporation. of structured artificial turf on multipurpose field and one practice field will substantially improve field capacity. • Automobile access will be improved by incorporation of full loop around building and additional curb cut onto Birch Meadow Drive. Some additional parking will be created on site. • Demolition of "arts wing" will lower total cost and reduce long term maintenance costs. • Educational program will continue to occupy the school during the construction. Multiple relocations for some classroom uses will be required during construction. • Administrative Offices will 'not have command of temporary entrance location during some phases of construction. • Inconvenience/distraction for teachers and students is high during construction. Opportunities for Contractor to fail in meeting schedule are high due to number of phases. OPTION 3 "More Replacement/Smaller Facility" • 273,000 SF • 56176 Renovated Space • 31-33 Months Construction - 3 Phases • $54 million total cost; $23 million Town of Reading cost • All elements of the educational program are included and in .the proper relationship to other programs (Math is next to Science; Administration is adjacent to the main entry; etc.) • All spaces meet MAAB/ADA requirements for accessibility. • All classroom spaces meet program space goals. • Science Labs, Music, Art and Drama programs will be supported through new and or better facilities, furniture and equipment. • Media Center consolidates on one floor, improving control and use. • Cafeteria (new construction) creates new school "Commons". • Access issues of older facilities are eliminated by consolidation in new space and connection to Field House. The Old Gymnasium is torn down. The Field House serves PE as well as Sports Team and Community -uses. • Auditorium is replaced with design to serve music and drama use as well as community uses. • New separate entry for Auditorium will be created with new adjacent off-street parking. Access control will be improved. • Incorporation of structured artificial turf on multipurpose field and one practice field will substantially improve field capacity. • Automobile access will be improved by incorporation of additional curb cut onto Birch Meadow Drive. Substantial additional parking will be created on site. • Demolition and replacement of "1950's building" will increase first cost while. reducing long-term maintenance costs. Lower total square footage will, however, reduce opportunities for `casual occupation, storage and separation of uses (PE vs. sports use). • Educational program will not occupy space under construction. Single relocation to new space will be completed after new. construction. Only the "science wing" uses will require temporary relocation. • Administrative Offices will maintain control of primary entrance location during all phases of construction. • Inconvenience/distraction for .teachers and students is lower during construction -ala Parker Middle School project. • Opportunities for Contractor to fail in meeting schedule are lower due to two simpler construction phases. Failure to complete a phase would have no impact on users. Reading Memorial High School Study Project Cost Breakdown FAI Project Number 2204.00 October 1, 2002 IProiected Enrollment 1320 Students COST OF CONSTRUCTION Item Construction New Construction Basic Renovation Extensive Renovation Major Renovation (Total Size) Phased Construction Cost Temporary Facilities Sitework: Fields, Parking, & Landscape Site Utilities Building Demolition Hazardous Materials Abatement Design Contingency Total Contingencies Estimating Contingency (10%) Construction Contingency/ New 5% Construction/Rennovation 10% Owner's Contingency/1% A/E Services Contingency @ 5% Fee Total Design and Engineering Fees Architect Fee Total Furniture and Equipment Furniture Acquisition @ 1000/student Fees and Expenses Total Computer Technology: Infrastructure & Equipment Equi pment @ 1200/student Infra structure Fees and Expenses Total Additional Project Costs 1 Surveying 2 Geotech. Cons. + Testing 3 Civil Engineering/Landscupe .4 Food Service 5 Acoustics 6 Cost Estimating 7 Graphics 8 Testing 'and Monitoring at Construction 9 Bidding Printing, Adendum & Distribution 10 Legal 1 l Reimbursable Expenses - Architect 12 Construction Manager 13 Security Consulants 14 Environmental Testing 15 Enviromental Impact Report 18 Utility Costs 19 Model / Rendering 20 Traffic Consultant 21 Asbestos Report and Monitoring Services 22 Budget/ Auditing Services 23 Building Commissioning 24 Auditorium/Studio Consultant Total: Additional Project Costs Unit S.F. Cast Unit S:F. Cost Unit S.F. Cost $145 0 $0 $145 19,093 $2,768,485 $145 120,000 $17,400,000 $70 170,109 $11,907,630 $70 170,834 $11,958,380 $70 79,588 $5,571,160 $90 114,761 $10,328,490 $90 95,907 $8,631,630 $90 41,471 $3,732,390 $120 49,554 $5,946,480 $120 38,517 $4,622,040 $120 31,493 $3,779,160 334,424 324,351 272,552 $400,000 $160,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $800,000 $276,000 $576,000 $1,988,000 $405,000 $350,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $36,863,600 $36,166,535 $38,470,710 $3,686,360 $3,616,654 $3,847,071 $0 $138,424 $870,000 $2,818,260 $2,521,205 $1,308,271 $368,636 $361,665 $384,707 $175,102 $171,791 $173,118 $7,048,358 $6,809,739 $6,583,167 $3,502,042 $3,435,821- 11 $3,462,364 $3,502,042 $3,435,821 $3,462,364 $1,320,000 i) $1,320,000 $1,320,000 $132,000 I $132,000 $132,000 $1,452,000 51,452,000 $1,452,000 $1,584,000 $668,848 $158,400 $1,584,000 $648,702 $158,400 $1,584,000 $545,104 $158 400 $2,411,248 $2,391,102 , $2,287,504 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $760,000 $680,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 . $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25 000 $1,782,000 $1,742,000 , $1,662,000 Total Project Cost $53,059,248 $51,997,197 $53 917 745 Estimated SBA Reimbursement Percentage 60.11% 59.81% , , 05% 58 Estimated Amount Reimbursed _ S31,893,914 $31,099,524 . $31,299,251 COST TO TOWN $21,165,333 $20,897,673 $22,618,494 ea A x o -a o y CD N p V O 0+ t - o d x S' t~ O O O c3 [:~-j d \^j CD ti a qo C~ p / D D v co cn TI m m n + - ~ m m i C r ~y ~1 9 C V o Z• \ m m m = 01 © as 0 n C7 } ~o a ~ o V O o °b 0 ~ Gov 4 0 a Q nu 1^r 0 d r`P ~l I~n T D m m in Cl) D cn cn < < m m m T c"D N i~ tD 2~ 2~ r 6 N i~ z a o 0 0° c o o 0 0 0~ 0 3 0 0 !T~ c v N ' m m v f~ m m v m m v m m v _ I D m c~ 6 T: = D D m - n _ o w w m 3 o m o OM :9 w 30. » av 3 v go G fD ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ N ~ r (0 O o Q m m 0 ° O D 'O 3 n N v S3 v a cf) m W N ~ a4Q. pp A S 0 3 0 F sv Z 4 2 g SU N N cn O 3 N -0 m -0 p. ro n 0 N ~ O t v w Q Q a a q Y O p o O ~ D q° p 0 71 co z Fn > n m m rr,, o O = o { ~oZ V C ' mom a`V O / ` m o n D ~ q q fl a a a o 4~ CA U ~ o ~o o °E E3 p o q Vlllp ~ I ~ t co m m = o ° 3 ~p D Q N _CL a O C m z O m n G D m m 3 w o ~ m w Ni N N o ° 3 m Q r ~ 6 N v ~ `G Q r a m t t m ip ii o ~ o S v m r m ° m m m ° y N 0 0 ° O 3 m 0 c R~ o ° m n' ° 3 N m II m v m t m 0 0 ° m m N (D N D3~ Q N N. ~ n 7D m N m m \ rn ~ w ~m mmm pcn _QQ z m 3 1 2 0 o o v 0 m v go °o m 3 N N O E Q 3 A T X "0 O O. N O ~y V 0 O O + N + 's T ffi p-_1 11 E!3 o Sao? b a D r i 0 .v -nDZ v r. r m r o D- m NO, f -TI - / f - r ~ 1r ~ -n O Z D fl o o ~ ~o Di o n ~ 0 0 ~r 0 0 © ao Q rJ C N ~ ~ ~ _ 151 o o 2 8 m z o 0 Cl) m T = m F-I C z z CO D m e C) e e D 0 o g z z - a o n o I i ~ e ` ems- s a e z 4 E EE sp El T ~ ~ 6 p z 2 O S z o m 0 m ~ Cf) m ~D7 -1 Z z UJ -p -=G D D = r -(np W fit C n Z m Cf) D m - r 8 8 Yr'' 8 D -DI O O ~ p Q r D Z D m C p m p = ~ m 3J < ~ m Z Cl) m ~ I~-~,L1I Z r D ~CI9) D cn 8 m Z e o 8 D g 0 z Z e" 1 i o~~ ~ D = r ~ D C D m I ~J Cl) CO m cf) m N-~ ~ ~ w w m 88° 0~ zinWo cn 3 3 3 0 0 o a n v v o m o m v o m m m m y 3.5 cf) c m o c 0 (D o 0 3 2 v 3 0 = 3 0 c 0 m 0 ' 0