HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-25830 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-25830
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT (MDT)
"OPTION C" PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED ROUTE W SERVICE
TO MIAMI BEACH; AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
FINALIZE NEGOTIATION OF THE REQUIRED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND CITY FOR APPROVAL.
WHEREAS, In 2003, the Mayor and Commission of the City of Miami Beach requested
that the Administration negotiate a transfer of the Electrowave Shuttle Service to Miami Dade
Transit (MDT); and
WHEREAS, the City also requested that MDT provide an enhanced Route W proposal
that would provide a bi-directional loop route service to Miami Beach, while maintaining the
characteristics and identity of the service presently delivered by the City's Electrowave Shuttle;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above negotiations and in response to the City request, MDT
submitted four service options for consideration; and
WHEREAS, amended MDT Option C would deliver the best service per cost, by
operating ten buses on the bi-directional loop route, with headways of 10 minutes during peak-
hour service and 15 minutes off-peak; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of first year operations would be $2,587,726, and shared at
$500,000 by PTP funds/Miami Beach; $685,000 in Miami Beach Concurrency Mitigation funds,
and $1,405,301 in MDT funds; with subsequent annual increases not to exceed the South Florida
Transportation Cost of Living index, or three percent (3%) a year; and
WHEREAS, an Interlocal Agreement between the County and City is required for such
Service; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Interlocal Agreement, MDT will allow Miami Beach to provide
the bi-directionalloop route service in case the MDT contract is cancelled by the City for cause or
for convenience.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby approve
the Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) "Option C" proposal, as amended at this meeting, to provide an
enhanced Route W service to Miami Beach; and authorize the Administration to finalize
negotiation of the required Interlocal Agreement between the ounty and City for approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this the 23rd day of Fe
ATTEST:
~t faJ~
T:\AGENDA\2005\Feb2305\Regular\MDT Route W Proposal-Reso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
'3~-O "
ate
CITY OF MIAMI 'BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
Condensed Title:
A Resolution approving the Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) Option C proposal to provide an enhanced Route W service to
Miami Beach; and authorizing the Administration to finalize the required Interlocal Agreement between the County
and City for approval.
Issue:
I Shall the City accept the MDT proposal to provide a bi-directional-Ioop transit service to Miami Beach?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
In 2003 and in 2004 the City Commission requested the Administration negotiate a shuttle service option with MDT to
maximize the use of public transit resources.
Negotiations with MDT have produced the basis for an interlocal agreement for shuttle service provision with expanded
services and less cost to the City.
MDT has offered four (4) service options with different levels of service delivery and cost participation by the City.
These options include:
1. Enhance the present Route W to provide a bi-directionalloop route service utilizing ten (10) diesel mini-
buses, with service level option choices for the City of;
-Base Services providing 15 to 24-minute headways (peak/off-peak hours) with a minimum City
participation at $500,000, utilizing the City's annual share of PTP funds;
-Option A: 12 to 24-minute headways, with the City providing $695,716 (PTP and City funds)
-Option B: 10 to 24-minute headways, with the City providing $1,034,530 (PTP & City funds)
-Option C: 10 to 20-minute headways, with the City providing $1,182,427 (PTP & City funds)
2. Maintain the current $.025 fare structure
3. Maintain the characteristics and identity of the service presently delivered by the City's Electrowave
The Administration recommends Option C as the best service level for the shuttle among those offered.
Approval of the Resolution will provide direction to the Administration on service provision by authorizing the completion
of an interlocal agreement with MDT for shuttle service provision.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
Both the Miami Beach Transportation Management Association (MBTMA) Board of Directors and the City's
Transportation and Parking Committee have unanimously recommended that the City keep the shuttle under City
control; the Finance & Citywide Projects Committee recommended that Commissioner Bower explore the possibility of
MDT transferrin Route Wand its 0 eratin bud et under Ci control.
Financial Information:
Finance Dept.
$ 500,000
$ 685,000
$1,405,301
$2,587,726
187.8000.312910 (PTP Revenue)
158.6217.000335 CMF/S.Beach
Miami Dade Transit
First year operating cost
Source of
Funds:
Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
Amelia Johnson/Robert Halfhill
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
R7L
z -;2.S-a:s--
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Date: February 23, 2005
From:
Jorge M. Gonzal~_ ~
City Manager v- 0
A RESOLUTI OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT
(MDT) "OPTION C" PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED ROUTE W
SERVICE TO MIAMI BEACH; AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION
TO FINALIZE THE REQUIRED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COUNTY AND CITY FOR APPROVAL.
Subject:
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
In 1994 the South Beach Transportation Management Association (SoBe TMA) was formed
with the purpose of addressing transportation issues in the community. Transportation
Management Associations (TMA's) were being pursued nation wide at the time with
support and funding assistance provided by the State and Federal Department of
Transportation. The TMA concept was to form public/private partnerships to create
solutions to help manage transportation problems. To promote private sector involvement
and acceptance of the TMA concept, an independent board approach was utilized that
created a distinction from typical government agencies. Active private sector involvement
was solicited and necessary to help with the acceptance of transportation solutions that
would potentially affect employees and or their working conditions (for example, flexible
work hours to stagger traffic flows). The concept assumed some level offinancial support
by the private sector so as not to have the entire expense borne by public agencies.
In 1995 the SoBeTMA voted to become the Miami Beach Transportation Management
Association (MBTMA). In October 1995 the MBTMA was formed as an independent
501 (c)(3) not for profit corporation.
The stated purpose of the MBTMA was to develop and implement transit solutions
(circulator/park and ride shuttle service) and mobility options (vanpools, carpools, etc.)
beyond the private automobile on Miami Beach. Initial work of the MBTMA involved the
planning and background work to provide for a shuttle service in the City.
In January 1998 the City of Miami Beach and the MBTMA started the "Electrowave", an
electric shuttle bus service on South Beach. The initial service was provided with seven (7)
electric buses, Monday through Wednesday, 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.; Thursday through
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.; and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Service was
provided free of fare on a two-way circulator with 29 stops. The length of the route was 2.4
miles per direction along Washington Avenue between 17th and 5th streets, at 5th South on
Lenox Avenue to Alton Road and back to 5th Street. In July 1999 a fare of $.25 was
implemented.
In 2003, as a result of fluctuating ridership and increasing costs, the City commissioned a
study that was conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) from
the University of South Florida. The study was to analyze the Electrowave viability, to
provide recommendations regarding ways to improve the mobility on South Beach,
eliminate duplicative bus services provided by MDT and the City on the same corridors,
and to recommend ways to increase ridership and reduce cost.
The CUTR report of the Electrowave established that there is a need in the community for
a shuttle service and that the Electrowave shuttle bus service is among the most
successful local transit circulator services among dozens in Florida. The CUTR report
made a variety of recommendations such as:
- New route configuration options
- Elimination of the Collins route
- Contracting with private sector and possibly the County
- Developing new marketing strategies
- Switching to diesel vehicles
- Coordinate with Miami-Dade Transit
- Changing service hours
Many of the recommended changes have been implemented to date, resulting in improved
ridership and service. Route changes have been enacted, new marketing initiatives
implemented, service hours adjusted and a determination to change the fleet to diesel
vehicles has been made.
In developing the Electrowave budget for FY 2004/2005, and as a follow up to the CUTR
study, the Administration started to explore different operating shuttle bus alternatives for
South Beach. One of the alternatives considered was the nature of the relationship with
MDT and how City and MDT transit resources might be utilized to operate the Electrowave
bus circulator service. In April 2004, the first meeting took place between City and County
official to explore different operating alternatives to operate a bus circulator service in
South Beach.
One key concept that was discussed with the County is how the two agencies can best use
their respective public resources to the maximum advantage of the community. There was
a conscious recognition that as public agencies each has an obligation to be responsible
stewards of public resources. While both agencies could operate transit services in the
same general area, it would be inefficient and provide no real advantage to the public to
cover similar service areas.
A series of meetings was conducted with the County through the fall of 2004. In a
September 2004 City Commission budget meeting, the nature of the County discussions
was reviewed and the Commission confirmed a desire to continue to explore options. In
2
October 2004 several service options began to take shape, the general terms of which
were briefed to the Transportation and Parking Committee and the Miami Beach
Transportation Management Association.
In November 2004, the City Commission again confirmed a desire to explore services
provided by MDT and directed the Administration to finalize negotiations with the County.
Commissioner Bower was designated the Commission liaison for the negotiations.
In December 2004, City staff, with Commissioner Matti Bower and County Commissioner
Bruno Barreiro in attendance, met with Mr. Roosevelt Bradley, MDT Director, and his staff
to conclude the discussion on a scope of services option to have MDT serve as the
operator of the City shuttle service. At this meeting most of the items listed in the attached
Scope of Services were agreed upon. A few items were subsequently agreed upon and
are made part of the final attached Scope of Services (Attachment A). The proposed
shuttle route is depicted in Attachment B. The proposed shuttle route is very similar to the
current County operated "W" route.
In general terms, the scope of services provides that MDT would become the contractor
providing shuttle services on South Beach in lieu of the current contractor, the Miami
Beach Transportation Management Association (MBTMA). The scope provides for an
expanded level of service at significantly less cost to the City. The actual cost to the City is
dependent upon the service level option that is selected by the City Commission.
In the creation of the different service options, the City and County discussed the option of
the City operating the expanded shuttle route with a County financial contribution. The
County contribution would have been in lieu of, or a part of the funds spent on service to
the current MDT route. The option of a shared responsibility for bus service that would
have the County run the route in one direction and the City in the opposite direction was
also explored. Both of these options were not deemed feasible for operational reasons as
well as the contractual requirements with which the County must operate.
In order to conclusively address the City's ability to operate the current County route in lieu
ofthe County, the City also asked whether it would be allowed to run a route very similarto
the current W route without a financial contribution from the County. The County has
stated that they will not abandon the current W route and would not permit the City to
provide service to that area. The only service options available to the City for future
operations would be the current configuration of the Electrowave route or some other
modification that did not duplicate County service.
The transit proposals presented for discussion provide more service for less cost and are
the result ofthe City and County combining and coordinating transit resources, rather than
continuing to operate in competition for much of the same ridership. The proposal also
recognizes the benefits of the required infusion of spending for route improvements by
MDT to comply with the requirements of the Peoples Transportation Tax. The proposal
captures the benefit of the increased spending by MDT and shared resources to provide
the community with a better level of service.
Four service level options are presented in Attachment C for Commission consideration
with different headways (the time between buses at any given bus stop). Each service
option presents an improvement in the service level by decreasing the headway. As
3
headways are decreased, the cost of the service option increases.
I n each of the service options a peak and off peak operating time period is identified. The
identified time periods are derived from actual ridership data provided by MBTMA and
provides for the best headways in the heaviest travel time periods. The time of operation
for the shuttle service is identical to that of the current Electrowave, 8:00 a.m. through
1 :OOa.m. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. through 1 :00 a.m. on Sunday. The
peak and off peak service periods are identified in the attached service option listing.
In current operations, the Electrowave provides a 10 minute peak and between 12-15
minute off-peak headways. While the MDT proposal can be adjusted to reflect different
peak and off-peak hours, the suggested times reflect the greatest periods of ridership on
the Electrowave system. Maintaining 10 minute headways for all hours of service is not
supported by ridership data. In the future, the peak hours of operation can be revisited
based on use and system demands which would be monitored by MDT.
The base and option A service options with 15 and 12 minute peak service and 24 minute
off peak service is illustrated, however these options are not recommended as an
appropriate level of service for the community. Service options Band C have better
headways with corresponding cost increases that are recommended for the focus of the
Commission discussion.
The only variables between the different service options are the headway times and the
cost. All other of the MDT service proposal points are applicable to all of the service
options.
The costs in the service options assume that the base level of service is paid to the County
by using the City transit share of the annual Peoples Transit Program Tax (PTP). The
annual PTP transit allocation is 20% of the total amount provided to the City. This 20%
allocation is required to be used for transit purposes. If not used for transit services, the
20% share of PTP funds must be returned to the County. At present, these funds are used
to pay part of the Electrowave budget. The 2005 allocation is approximately $500,000, as
shown on Attachment C, and is expected to increase annually with the tax proceeds.
Attachment C illustrates the different service options, system headways and the total costs
allocated to the City and the County for the proposed shuttle service in the first year of
operation.
As each service option headway times are improved, the cost to the City increases. Any
expenditure, or allocation, of City funds is at the direction of and controlled by the City
Commission. It would be anticipated that the primary source for added costs for service
would be City concurrency funds and that the Parking Fund be used for funding as a last
resort. In each annual budget cycle, the City Commission would direct the desired
allocation and source of funds.
The scope of service also identifies future cost increases and caps the increase to the
lower of the Consumer Price Index - Urban Transportation index or 3%. An attached table,
Attachment D, illustrates the projected annual costs ofthe expanded route versus the costs
of the current Electrowave operation. The table also identifies the funding to be provided
by the City and the County for a five year period. While the savings to the City will vary
4
dependent on the service option selected, at the highest service level discussed to date,
Option C, the conservative 5 year savings in City expenditures is projected to be over
$4,500,000.
Key concerns that were discussed with the County and which are reflected in the scope of
service involved customer service and system reliability. The scope identifies both of these
areas as concerns and requires that it be a priority of the County in operating the route.
The County will require specific customer service training for its employees on the route
and will use on board cameras to monitor customer interactions and driver behavior. MDT
representatives, who will be present for the meeting, can best relate the MDT focus on
customer service and the direction of the system.
The scope of service maintains the current fare of $.25. Future fare changes are left to the
City Commission to address or approve. Increases in operating costs could be paid with all
City resources, fare increases, or any combination of resources as determined by the City
Commission in each annual budget cycle.
The scope of service also makes a provision to address a City determination to cancel the
service agreement. If the City chooses to end the service agreement for any reason, the
County would turn over to the City the six buses currently in operation on the route that had
been secured with the City's allocation from the Federal Transit Agency (FT A) at the
creation of the service agreement. In this manner, the agreement is not an all or nothing
approach and the City retains the flexibility to reenter transit service operations if so
desired.
If the Commission elects to proceed with a change in our transit service provider, part of
the transition discussions should involve a review ofthe current MBTMA role and structure.
The original TMA concept, upon which the MBTMA was created, has succeeded in
providing shuttle services but, like many other TMA's, has had mixed results in the
implementation of other transportation solutions. Clearly the desired private-sector financial
and program support has not materialized and the complexity of the community as well as
society has changed significantly since the original TMA model was conceived.
As MDT has agreed to interact with a local agency of the City Commission's choice on
transit operations, this new role could be filled by a revised MBTMA/TMA or some other
group of the Commission's choice. The discussion on future roles and duties would also
involve how to address the four full time employees of the MBTMA who are paid 50% each
from the 2 principle activity budgets of the MBTMA, the Electrowave operating budget and
the Transportation Management budget. While the Electrowave operational responsibility
may be shifted to MDT, there is still a legitimate transportation management activity that
the City should provide and which can be performed by the MBTMA in the future, if so
desired by the City Commission.
In the event that the Commission chooses to continue to utilize MBTMA as our service
contract provider, a discussion on the structure and governance of the MBTMA in this
capacity may still be appropriate. The Commission may wish to consider whether
continuing to use an independent corporation created under a TMA model is still desirable.
The TMA concept has evolved in a different fashion than originally anticipated and the
passage of time and the availability of transportation resources (for example, PTP funds)
has changed the transportation planning dynamic. The current model also functions with
5
a completely different manner of Board member appointment and representation than
other City boards to accomplish the provision of a service with City wide impacts that
require policy direction from the Commission.
As requested by the City Commission, the same information was formally presented for
discussion to the following board and committees, which made the following
recommendations:
1. The MBTMA Board of Directors met on January 27,2005 at 10:00 a.m., and voted
unanimously to recommend the following for Commission consideration:
a. That the City does not enter into an agreement with the County.
b. Continue transit services plus enhancements through the Electrowave;
c. Purchase the six diesel buses;
d. Continue with branding and marketing enhancement efforts; and
e. City contact the County in an effort to absorb the Route Wand that
County savings derived there from be transferred to the City for the
enhanced services.
2. The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee met on January 27,2005 at 2:30 p.m.,
and voted unanimously to approach the County elected officials with a City proposal
that MDT transfer its operating responsibility for the Route Wand its operating funds to
the City. Commissioner Bower was asked to provide the liaison to the County.
3. The Transportation & Parking Committee met on January 31, 2005 and voted
unanimously on the same MBTMA Board recommendations listed above.
The Administration seeks Commission direction on how to proceed with provision of shuttle
services. If the Commission desires to accept the service offer negotiated with the County,
authorization to finalize an Interlocal Agreement with MDT for the MDT proposed Option C
service, which would provide an enhanced bi-directionalloop service utilizing 10 buses at
peak hour, with headways of 10 minutes (peak hours) and 20 minutes (off-peak), for a total
annual cost of $2,587,728 is recommended.
Approval of the Resolution presented will provide the necessary direction to the
Administration.
JMG/RM/FB/RH/aj
Attachments: A
B
C
D
MDT Scope of Services for Enhanced Route Service
Proposed Enhanced Route
MDT-Proposed Four Service-Level Options
Projected Annual Cost of Expanded Route vs. Current Electrowave
T:\AGENDA\2005\Feb2305\Regular\MDT Route W Proposal-Memo. doc
6
January 5, 2005
MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT (MDT) PROPOSAL TO OPERATE A BI-DIRECTIONAL
ROUTE W SERVICE AS A SOUTH BEACH BUS CIRCULATOR
Service Description
MDT will provide a bi-directional Route W service. This minibus circulator will
service South Beach seven (7) days a week. The bi-directional route will start at
the Sunset Harbour Publix, ~o south on Alton Road, west on Lincoln Road, south
on West Avenue, east on 6 Street, south on Alton Road, east on South Pointe
Drive, north on Washington Avenue, west on 17th Street, north on Meridian
Avenue, west on Dade Boulevard, north on Alton Road, west on 20th Street,
south on Bay Road, east on 18th Street and north on West Avenue. This route
will be the same in the opposite direction (see Exhibit B); a sketch of the bi-
directional Route W with current Electrowave Route superimposed).
Hours of Service
The enhanced bi-directional Route W will have the same service hours as the
Electrowave:
Monday-Saturday 8:00 am - 1 :00 am
Sunday and Holidays 10:00 am - 1 :00 am
Service Freauency (Headway)
MDT has proposed to provide a base service with the following headways for a
$500,000 year City contribution.
Headway of 15 minutes Monday-Saturday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm
Sunday and Holidays 12:00 noon-6:00 pm
Headway of 24 minutes Monday-Saturday
1 :00 am
8:00 am -10:00 am and 6:00 pm-
Sunday and Holidays 10:00 am- 12:00 noon and 6:00
pm-1 :00 am
Service Options as defined by different headways are shown as Options A, B
and C at different costs to be paid by the City (See Exhibit C)
Fare
MDT agrees to keep the fare for the new bi-directional route at 25 cents. Any
future fare adjustments will be decided by the City as the funding choices for
annual operating expenses attributed to the City is addressed by the City
Commission.
1
ATr^c4JV\tlVT A
Eauipment
MDT agrees to provide the necessary number of low-floor diesel minibuses to
provide the headways that the City Commission is willing to fund. MDT will use
biodiesel as an alternative fuel for the Enhanced Bi-Directional Route W. Buses
will have the following equipment:
Security cameras
Bike racks
Automatic passenger counters
Voice anunciators
If a final agreement cannot be reached between the City and the County and
because the City is ready to purchase six (6) low-floor diesel minibuses with FT A
funding, MDT agrees to provide six (6) new buses equal or better than the City
specified bus from the County's bus RFP at the FT A funded amount of
$1,629,445.
If the Agreement is terminated for any reason, MDT agrees to transfer six (6)
low-floor diesel minibuses being used at the time on the route to service the
route.
General Conditions
a) MDT will utilize the City provided new shuttle branding or equivalent
branding which denotes a South Beach identity, not the standard MDT bus
look.
b) MDT will conduct driver customer service training regularly and make
courteous service part of their performance evaluation.
c) MDT will develop and implement a campaign to market the loop service
with the goal of increasing ridership.
d) MDT will provide free rides during New Year's Eve, Memorial Day
Weekend, Art Deco weekend and Election Days.
Electrowave I MDT Option Cost Comparison
Exhibit (D) shows the cost comparison between the FY 2004/05 Electrowave
budget and the proposed cost for the MDT Bi-Directional Route W bus service.
F:\WORK\$ALL\(1} EMPLOYEE FOLDERS\OLUCY LLOPIS\Electrowave\MDT Route W PP,doc
ATTACHMENT A
?
,I ~ "i.~:: !,
, /;~. t: ,.; f
LEGEND:
,- ELECTROWA VE ROUTE
2.- BI-DIRECTIONAL ROUTE W
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF MIAMI BE "~
JANUARY 03, 2005
~ ',\~;:,':-'. l"..:_~ L.":'J~'\\(, ;\:':( ,; ')"~ )..',;';[;':,,~::'::''':';'''\I\\;:- :~',:'":':::"U: :)::.":. ::l':--';!,:,: :.'1':: \\
1-.....
a CI)
::E8
.t::.....
u CI)
co8
Q)....
OJ 0
'E ~
co co
'- .t::
~CI)
"(5
=:3
en c:.....
c: CI)
Z <( 0
0 "(5()
.....
j:: ~
c..
0
to- ~
en ~
0 "0
0 co
C ~
z
<C
en
w
0
~
w
en
to- ~
C =:3
~ ~
C Ol
w :S
en e:!
0 Q)
c.. 8-
0
0::
c..
ac1:S
z
0
~
w
c..
0
<C
~
to- CI)
m c:
~ ~
to- 8-
z
w
0::
0::
::>
0
I
~
L!)
('I')
q 0
co 0
0
CD c:i
0>. 0)
..... 10
I-
0
~ ~
+
L!)
('I')
0>.
co
L!)
o.
N
~
.~.~ .~
E E E
ON"<t
..... ..... .....
........
III
-0
C
Q)
.:s:.
Q)
Q)
:;:
C
0
E
ro
0
III <;:?
-00>
c-E
Q) E E
.:s:. COco
Q) a.o
Q)ooo
:s:oo<;:?
,:...:,....-r-
-g I I I
ro E E E
lIlroa.a.
>'000
rooo<;:?
~.. "0
Q) co 1'-.....
Q)
:s:
C
0
..
cu
....
CI) III
0. ....
='
0 Q) 0
<("5 .r::.
:;: 0 .:s:.
ro
1-0:: Q)
m C a.
:;:0.....
..... co
.... OJ III
C .~ Q)
e.r::. III
.... III ='
::::Iro..o
0:S:1'-
..... ..... ..... .....
0 0 0 0
('I') ('I') ('I') ('1').
16 16 16 L!)
0 0 0 0
"<t. "<t. "<t. "<t.
..... ..... ..... .....
~ ~ ~ ~
........ ........
........ ........ N ~
..... N -
- - 0 I'-
0 CD ('I') N
0 ..... L!). "<t.
0 1'-.
0 "<t N
L!) ('I') co
0 0> o. .....
L!) CD
~ ~ ..... .....
~ ~
..... I'- ..... co
0 ..... ('I') N
('I') o. co. 1'-.
16 ..... 0> I'-
0 0 ('I') co
0>. ..... "<t. L!)
..... N N N
~ ~ ~ ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.~.~.~ .~ .~.~.~ .~ .~.~.~ .~ .~.~.~ .~
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
L!)"<tL!)"<t N"<tN"<t o"<to"<t 0000
.....N.....N .....N.....N .....N.....N .....N.....N
E E E E E E
E E (u ro ro ro ro ro
ro ro 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 <;:? <;:? <;:? 0 <;:? <;:?
<;:? <;:? ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
I I I I I I
..... ..... E E E E E E
I I
E E 0. a. a. a. a. a.
a. a. 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 <;:? <;:? o 0 <;:? <;:?
<;:? <;:? ECDE~ EiOEse ECDE~
CD CD a.~ a.~ a.~ a.~ a.~ a.~
E-- Ec
a. 'a.o oEoo oEoo oEoo
~o 0 o . 0 C o . 0 C <;:?cO<;:?c
0 .. co ., .. ro ..
<;:?roo C CDOCDN CDOCDN CDoCDN
CD .. N 10 I,.... 10 I"'" I 0'.....
o CD..... E .. E E E .. E E E .. E E
101 I roOro rooro ro o ro
Eo E E ..... ro ..... co ..... o ro
ro.....roro 8080 8080 0 I
<;:? 0 00
0000 ..0" 0 ..0" 0 <;:? .. 0
0" N" 0" N" 0 N ..
<;:?ooo ..... co..... 0 .....co.....o ..... co ..... 0
ocoNo ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... >- . . >- . . >- . .
-0 -0 -0
>- ro C ro C ro C
ro ro -0 Q) -0 Q) -0 Q)
U) -0 .:s:. .:s:. .:s:. .:s:. .:s:. .:s:.
I C Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
0 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
~ =' :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s:
U)
I/)
CI)
CJ
.~ :s: .... :s: .... :s: .... :s: ....
=' =' =' ='
CI) 0 Q) 0 0 0
CJ)2 .r::. Q) .r::. Q) .r::.
......r::. ..... .....
CI) =' .:s:. ='.:s:. =' .:s:. =' .:s:.
I/) 0 co <(&~ 0 ro 0 ro
cuO:: Q) mo:: Q) 00:: Q)
m- a. c - a. c- a. c- a.
I- ~ ..... oro..... o ~ ro o ~ ro
ro ..~ro
C .2 III .. 0 III .. 0 III
:;: 0 0.'- III 0.:';::::; 0.:';::::;
Q) oOQ) o ~ Q) o ~ Q)
Q) III Q) III III III
. =' I- .!::: .E I- .!::: .E I- .!::: ='
g.:6 ..0 0"0 0-0 0"'9 ..0
......!. 0 :;: ..!. 0 :;: ..!. 0 :;:ii5 0
Q.CO..... co..... co..... .....
()
.....
C
Q)
E
.r::.
u
ro
~
?ft.
('I')
....
o
C
o
:.;::::;
ro
t
o
a.
III
C
ro
t=
:J
..l.
a..
()
.....
o
....
Q)
III
III
~
Q)
.r::.
.....
Q) Q)
......0
ro 0
.r::. .....
III III
a.. Q)
I- III
a.. ~
....
ro g
=' .-
c.....
C III
ro 0
III U
~ro
(3 ~
Q):';::::;
.r::. ~
..... Q)
08-
?ft.ro
o ='
N C
.... C
0<(
................
.....N
--
U)
W
I-
o
Z
c
'" .9
~o.
.- 0
10 <(
(/):E
~~
<..):E
~ C
co ~
:; ::l
E <..)
::l '"
<..) >
w
(.)
~
W
V>
0-
o
o
..J
.J
<
Z
o
i=
(.)
w
ct
C
I
ai
<
ct
o
U-
V>
Z
o
i=
0-
o
l-
V>
o
(.)
l-
e
:IE
e
w
V>
o
0-
o
ct
'D-
en
>
w
(.)
~
W
V>
<
:IE
I-
m
:IE
I-
Z
W
ct
0::
~
(.)
~ CI)
'_ "0
- s:::
<<l :J
"5LL
E:::...
:J:!::::
(.)(.)
0)
o
o
C\I
00
o
o
C\I
OlCl)
.S ~
"0>;;.
s::: :J
:J 0
LLCI)
C C C
'E'E 'E
ONIO
.... .... ....
>-1:
. rn ro .Ql
CIi...OZ
:>"::l:;:::;::
<<l 0 ro ro
;:.c0)0)
"O~ 0.0.
~rol:l=~
J:~OO
0)0)' 'co
1'--.... 0)
co. 0). 10
C")N eO
"<t"<t co
0.... ....
Lri'M 00
C") N "<t I 0)
C")COIO "<t
NC")I'-- C")
criLri'N" r-:
cococo ....
o.colO C")
N"
....
....O"<t' "<t
O)oco 10
0"<tC") co
OOLri'eO cri
C")co"<t "<t
O.COIO N
N"
....
I"-
o
o
C\I
100)0
10....10
co. O. "<t.
I'--COO
0"<tC")
O.co 10
....
'''<t
N
C")
.,f
co
....
N"
co
o
o
C\I
OC")O I C")
000 0
IONO I'--
oor-:Lri' 0
I'--N.... N
O)COIO ....
N"
1.0
o
o
C\I
0100010
o C") 00 C")
00)000)
0000000
10....00) 10
0)1010 0
N"
0).. ro
.S ~ +J
~O)o.." 0
ffi=I-" I-
0..00..1-
>- >- >-0
::::~~O
(.)(.)(.)u.
0) ...
U 0)
._ -C
c: 'S;
0) e
(/)0..
-
...
0) ::l
c:(:50
:EO.c
I-O:::~
to C ~
:E.9o.
....c g> lB
.- rn
Q) .c ::l
t;:lIl.o
::l~1'--
U>-
co
0)
10
eO
co
....
00
I I I I
I "<t 0) C")
10 I'-- C")
I'-- co "<t
N"": .,f
co co "<t
10 10 ....
....N"
I "<to "<t
co.... I'--
C") co 0).
eO Lri' ....
"<t C") co
10100
....N"
'O"<t "<t
10 co C")
"<t co C")
00....
C") 0) N
10 "<t. 0
....N"
'000
ococo
o"<t "<t
Lri' r-: N"
.... "<t co
10 "<t. 0).
.... ....
IO'r"~
000
OC") C")
0Lri'Lri'
000
10 "<t. 0).
.... ....
~ 0.. ..
- I- ..
00....
>- >- I-
__0
GG~
Ul ~ -.::-
Q) 0) ::l
U - 0
._ ::l .c
c=O~
Q) 0::: ro
(J)roO)
Q)Co.
Ul .Q lB
IV t5 rn
to 0) ::l
I- .!:: .0
0"90
:EiD~
10
....
10.
I'--
"<t
....
I'--
C") , I C")
co co
o 0
cri cri
C") C")
O. O.
.... ....
o "<t 0) C")
co 10 I"- ....
N I'-- co 1'--.
oN"":"<t
N co co co
N 10 10. C").
....N
"<t "<t 0 co
co co.... C")
co C") co co
M eO Lri' Lri'
.... "<t C") 0)
N 10 10. N.
....N
IOU"<tO)
C") 10 co co
co "<t co 0).
r-: c.5 0 co
o C") 0) N
N 10 '<T. N.
....N
1'--00 co
cooco"<t
100"<t0.
":Lri'r-:"<t
0.... "<t co
N 10 "<t. ....
....N
co r?.... I'--
....00....
I'-- 0 C") O.
Lri'0Lri' ....
0)000
.... 10 "<t. ....
....N
ro
-
o
I-
...
~ 0.. ..
....... I,'W ..
00..;"
~~O
GG~
~-
...
$ g
g.c
c:(o:::~
croO)
Oco.
+:: .Q lB
c.. t5 rn
OO)::l
I- .!:: .0
0"90
:E~~
10
o
I'--
00
"<t
C")
Lri'
N ' 'N
0) 0)
co. co
I'-- I'--
C") C")
co. co
N N"
co"<tO) ....
.... 10 I'-- 10
co. 1'--. co. 0
.... N.... eO
o co co '<T
co 10 10. I'--
....N"
10 "<to 0)
0) co.... co
o C") co 0
.,f eO Lri' eO
co"<tC") co
10 10 10 co
....N"
C")0"<t I'--
co 10 co ....
O. "<t. co. "<t
I'-- 0 0 00
co C") 0) co
10 10 "<t. 10
....N"
COOO co
cooco N
10 0 "<t 0
o Lri' r-: M
10 .... "<t ....
10 10 "<t. 10
....N"
00.... ....
C")OO C")
10. O. C"). co
"<t01O cri
C")OO C")
10 10 '<T. '<T
....N"
ro
-
o
I-
~ 0.. ..
- 1-"
o 0.. ..
>- >- I-
__0
GG~
~-
...
0) ::l
- 0
g.c
tOO:::~
croO)
Oco.
+:: .Q lB
c.. t5 III
OO)::J
I- .!:: .0
0"90
:EiD~
C C
'E 'E
00
....N
o
o
CI) ~ ~
:>,,::l ~ co
~OrolO
=- .c Q) --:
"O~o.""
<<lrol:l=
~~O
co I , co
0) 0)
o 0
M M
N N
co co
M M
co"<tO) ....
I'-- 10 I'-- ....
Ol'--CO 10
OON"":N"
co co co ....
I'-- 10 10. 0)
....N"
co "<t 0 0
o co.... co
I'-- C") co co
Lri' eO Lri' r-:
"<t"<tC") N
I'-- 10 10. co
....N"
I'--O"<t ....
co 10 co N
O)"<tco C")
MOO Lri'
N C") 0) "<t
I'-- 10 "<t. I'--
....N"
0000
ooco co
0) 0 "<t C")
N" Lri' r-: Lri'
0.... "<t co
1'--1O"<t.CO
....N"
I'-- 0 .... co
NOO N
"<t0C") I'--
N"0Lri'r-:
co 0 0 co
co 10 "<t. 10
....N"
ro
-
o
I-
~ 0.. ..
- 1-"
o 0.. ..
>- >- I-
__0
GG~
~-
...
0) ::J
- 0
g.c
Uo:::~
croO)
Oco.
:aBlB
OUlIl
Q) ::J
I- .!:: .0
0"90
:EiD~
D
-
C
0)
E
.c
U
ro
-
~
]
o
I-
co
o
o
N
>-
U.
0)
>
:;J
U
~
0)
-
C
ro
...
0)
I-
o
o
u.
0)
U
~
a.
0)
...
.9
rn
-C
C
2
+10
rnO
~ 03 rn
C ~ ~
0) C") C
>00)
0) ... >
... 0) ~
C;l::
o ro C
1$ 0) .Q
0)--
=-g~
8'1ij'5
0) > U
... ro 0)
~'-'-
+ ~~
rn C 0)
-cO-C
co.:!
2cg
>- rn .-
U -c rn
Cc-C
~ 2 5
::ll-....
uol-
coo
8u.~
..
.. ..
.. .. ..