Item P11
Sep 19 00 03:34p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p. 1
BOAIW OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADD ON
,/;- ~\ ~
~\ 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:~9120/00
Division:_BOCC
Bulk Item: Yes__. No__x_
Department: _Commissioner Williams __
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of the Draft Report on the Florida Keys Hurri~ane Evacuation
Study.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Late last week my office received the first draft of the Hurricane Evacuation
Study that will have profound implications to our future. A copy of the draft report has already been sent lo
you. Attached are my (;omments.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
TOT AL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes:_ No:
COST TO COUNTY:_~__
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes:_ _ No:_ AMOUNT PER MONTH
YEAR
APPROVED BY: County Attomey_ OMBlPurchasing_ Risk Manage~t.
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: '~ . '(. '-f\.r Ct.. Q
Nora A. Williams
DOCUMENTATION: Included:_x_ To Follow:~ Not Required:
DISPOSITlON:____
Agenda Item #:
p.tI
~ /"l
Do r ~ ~~ '\,-. ~.~...
(~.?)
Oct 03 00 01:05p
James L Roberts Co Admin
305-292-4544
HURRICANE EVACUATION DRAFT REPORT
COMMENTS TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS:
There are some absolutely huge issues involved with this draft report and I wanted to send along my
summary of what those issues are. Note that SOme of the concerns outlined below may be addressed at a
meeting later this month after which the final report will be released. Some oftnc issues outlined beluw
have to do with hurricane evacuation in and of itself. Some of the issues have to do with the impact of
hurricane evacuation methodology on our Growth Management directions.
Studies. Concerns. and Questions on the Hurricane Evacuation Draft Report:
1) n,e drllft report tloes not reflect tile approved "St.'ope of Work."
As a committee, we worked long and hard to reach consensus on a Scope of Work for this project.
Some of the most crucial elements of that Scope of Work are not included in this draft report. And
those crucial elements are pivotal to our ability to assess the value and worth of this draft. At the very
least, a second draft will need to be compiled which includes the missing elements from the Scope of
Work. To give just one example, growth is expected to be extraordinary in South Dade in cuming
years - the proposed expansion of the Homestead Air Force Base, the proposed expansion of
KeysGate, a proposed amusement attraction. these are just a few examples of projects that could have
profound effects on the traffic movement of the area. In our Scope of Work, that growth was to be
discussed and included, yet there isn't a sign of such consideration, That isjust one aspect of the Scope
of Work unaddressed in the Study, but it happens to be one that we, formally as the Board of County
Commissions, discussed and agreed needed to be included.
There was also to be provided (Scope of Work, page 14, paragraph 98)a list ofcriticaJ links both
within and OUTSIDE Monroe County that will most aftect clearance times, That list was to be used as
a tool for local law enforcement to determine the deployment ofresources, as well as a tool for FDOT
to determine most needed improvements.
Additionally, while the last study was condemned for stopping at the County line, this study promised
to include evacuation all the way to the County's mainland shelters, - but, in fact, appears to have done
no detailed work past Florida City, simply settling for adding an hour to the scheduled evacuation
times to account for that additional travel to FlU, twenty-six miles past Florida City. No evidence is
presented to justify using a stock one hour of that portIOn oflhe evacuation route, and there is little
doubt that substantial traffic could be encountered along that route.
Also, the table that spells out the vehicle capacities for each linK in the evaculltion route was not
included in the mailed minutes of the July 21 meeting and is nOI included in this study. This table is
crucial to establishing both the credibility of the report's conclUSIons and to understanding our options
as it spells out for each significant segment of tile evacuation route how many vehicles can movc
across the segment within a single hour.
Furthermore, since there are roadway contigurations in this study that deviate significantly from those
identified in the table (reverse laning, constructing additional lanes, making three lanes on a two-lane
road, elc.), the capacities for these configurations nCt:d to be stated. Capacities for all segments as
described in the five alternatives should be a required part of the final report. Delivery of this dala is
part of the Scope of Work.
The missing information on (31)acity (vehicles pCI' houl) of each rfllk and projected vehicles per
hour for each option makes it impossible to actulllly cvaluate this rCIU)I.t, This lack of data makes
it extn~mely t1iflicult to determine the efficiency of llny ol,lion and the elcmenls within eaclt
OJHioll. 1'lIt quite simpl}', then: is silllply 110 way to adeqlllltely evaluate Ihe condusions of Ihe
shllly willlout Ihe data lInd eXlllninations I'l~quil'ed in Ihe SCOllc of \Vork,
p. 1
~~.II
q/{Jj
/.- P 11
Oct 03 00 01:05p
James L Roberts Co Admin
305-292-4544
2) The Govemor's (Iirectioll wasl,'tjollmfJed.
Governor Bush' press release that announced thIs study (July 30, 1999) stated: "This study will center
on a proposal of enhancing existing infrastructure to meet the needs of an evacuation situation. Rather
than assuming a wider U.S. I, the study will assess the possibility of making Card Sound Road or U.S.
lone way northbound during an emergency evacuation. TIle assessment will determine what
permanent improvements, such as reconfiguring Card Sound Road access, would be feasible and also
what operational commitments would have to be in place during an evacuation jf a one-way solution is
adopted. "
In the dra ft report, there is no mention made of one-wayi ng either Card Sound Road or U. S. One (and
note that one-waying would, at the very least, make the northern terminus of the contrallow between
m.m 90 and 106 make more sense). It would be consistent with the Governor's direction to not only
require consideration of that option, but to thoroughly exhaust all alternatives to new construction ~
something which this report clearly doesn't do, Additionally, abo to be consistent with the Governor's
direction, when "build" alternatives are proposed, they should be proposed individually, in an order of
priority in keeping with minimal Impact for maximal etlect. (See Point 5 below.)
3) Tlte worst Worst Ctl:re scellario is not tlckllowledge(l.
Despite the fact that the Scope of Work called for the inclusion in the study of a scenario in which
Dade and Monroe had a simultaneous evacuation, such an examination was not included in this draft.
At the July 21,2000, meeting, ill fact, it was conceded that such a simultaneous evacuation would
never be called because it is already clear that it would make evacuation from the Keys impossible. So,
obviously, in a true worst case scenario we're not getting out of the Keys. So why are worst case
scenarios the norm in other parts of the study? It is no more likely that we would have to evacuate all
our tourists along with our residents (something which we have NEVER had to do) because of the
quick, unprecedented arrival of a storm, than that we would have to evacuate simultaneously with
Dade because of the quick, unprecedented arrival of a storm. It seems that the worst case scenario is
the norm for this draft report only when it suits the desired outcome. For consistency's sake, we should
either be planning for what is LlKEL Y to happen or the real worst case scenario, which is a
simultaneous evacuation with Dade.
4) Tile proposed TTClJlic Management OptlOI1S (presellte(l (ll' Itecessary to eVl'c,UUf' our existing
poplllatiOlt within 24 hOlln) create some "II.reulillK (Iues/ion.f.
According to this draft report, it will require certain traffic management implementations to make the
existing number of inhabitants able to evacuate within 24 hours, Those traffic management
Implementations include;
~ Operate traffic on tllt: four lanes of Florida City in a 3 northboundll southbound
contraflow
}> Operate traffic on U.S, One betwecn mm. 90 and 106 in a 3/1 contrallow (as above)
, Use the third lane frolll mnl. 80 to 90 for northbound traffic
, Use Cones to create 3 lanes (2 north/l south) on 2 lane section between m.lll. 54.5 and 80
,. Use Cones to create 3 lanes (2 north/l south) on 2 lane section bctween m.m.. 47 and 48
Note that one of the most difficult tasks involved with reverse-Ianing (contmf1ow) is the integration of
vehicles atlhe terminus, yet no mention is made of how that will be done in rhe first two suggested
conlrallows, so the actual practical implementation orthese suggestions has not, as yet, been
demonstrated.
A/so, Ih.: suggl.:sled Ihrec laning of the (Wo lane segment of lJ .S. One between nun. 54.5 ,ltld 80 was
discLlssed in a 1995 study pcrli>rmed by Post. BUl:k1cy, Schuh alld kllligan. Ine That stu<ly illdicaled
that making three lanes out of the e~istin~ two lanes involves drrving 011 VdrlOUS amounts of gravel,
gra", ;\nd ,l","lde,., and rhere arc several .H)-Iool-wlde two-l.me ondges (Ihe road is 32 feel wide).
lkspite the findings ofI'IlS&J, coning. this scclllln ofroat! has yet to he ltlili~....u by Monroe County as
p.2
Oct 03 00 01:05p
James L Roberts Co Admin
305-292-4544
a means of enhancing evacuation (here, again, it will be helpful 10 know the capacity of the roadway in
this configuration). Last but not least, ifthree-laning this two-lane section of U.S. One with Cones over
the course of 25.5 miles is considered acceptable, there is no reason why we can't do this on the 18
Mile Stretch, which is both shorter, consistently wider and has fewer bridges,
5) Wily is our "first" build optioll olle thaI iI/ditties all actioll Ihis Bocml doesn 'I slIpporl, in a set of
opliollS illal seems 10 have less impacI 0" hurricane evacual;0I1 IIIan Ihe less oblrtls;ve additions of
"Oplion 2?"
According to the report, without major changes to the highway, the eXIsting popUlation can be
evacuated from the Keys within a twellly-four hour period. For there to be any additional growth,
according to the rcport, significant changes will be requircd in the roadway. A list of changes is
included as Option One, an option that would decrease evacuation time by an additional hour and a
half. The required changes to reach lhe impact ofOplion One are:
~ Construct One Additional NorthBound Lane on US One in Florida City
)- Provide a 3 Lane On-Ramp from US One to northbound Florida Turnpike
> Construct one additional northbound lane 011 the 18 Mile Stretch
;.> Constmct one additional northbound lane between m.m. 90 and 106.3
~ Provide a continuous three-lane section between rn.IlI, 54.5 and m.m. 90
;.> Construct 2 northbound through lanes through the signalized intersection of U.S.
One and State Road S940/Wilder Road near m.m. 31 on Big Pine Key
These are obviously huge changes with enormous economic and other impacts for the communities
affected, for a reduction in evacuation time of only ninety-six minutes.
The report offers 8n Option Two, which includes all of the changes above plus two other significant
roadway changes, resulting in a total evacuation time reduction offour hours:
;.> Curve the intersection of Card Sound Road and County Road 905
:;. Construct one additional northbound lane from m,m, 47 to m.nt. 48.
If Option Two offers liS, then, a savings of two and a half additional hours Over the ninety-six minutes
saved in Option One, what would be the impact of the two roadway changes added in Option Two
alone? There are a host of reasons that we need to know the answer to that quelltion, not the leasl of
which is that the two added roadway changes listed in Option Two would have significantly fewer
impacts on the local population than the six detailed in Option One.
The truth is, the material isn't presented in a fashion that is useful for weighing the evacuation
impacts/growth impacts vs. community/environmental impacts, Each of the significant change optIOns
needs to be listed separately with two kinds of numbers attached: I) the evacuation impact of making
that change and only that change to the existing roadway system and 2) the evacuation impact of that
change when combined with each of the other significant changes, or with groups and combinations of
those changes.
For all that this sounds complex, the math is available or Ihe options couldn't be presented to us at all
with evacuation clearance time impacts attached. This request will simply requires an extensive
spreadsheet with the data presented in the manner requested. We, as Ihe Monroe County Board of
County Commissioners, need that level of detail - and its presentation would be imminently more
respectful of decisions we've already made than that currently included in the draft Hurricane
Evacuation report.
6) WhuI';J chIll/fled ill tile .vear~' si"ce Ihe lusI report completed by /I,is ellgillC~er?
Craig Miller, lead engineer for Miller Consulting, Inc. (Ihe consultanfwho produced this dratl report),
was the lead enginecr for a study produced a few years ago for the local law tinn of Malts on & l~)bin.
rhat study. produced by Kimley-I'lorn (fur whom Millcr worked OIl the time) tound that the evacuation
of lhc eXisting popUlali,)n could be reduced to kss than twcnty-film hours through the lIse oflrani<:
management imd non-ClllllroversiaJ improYCml'nls (like lhe HOCC supported curv~~ on Canl SOllnd
p.3
Oct 03 00 01:06p
Jame~ L Roberts Co Admin
305-292-4544
p.5
and buy us a number of years of additional permitting at the current rates, but what then? Will we have
the funds to buy all the land if we don't have the permits to release at that point? Will we just keep
widening until it's an 8 Jane 18 Mile Stretch and a 4 lane from Key Largo to Key Wcst? Do we
continue releasing permits at the rate we are at now, while we layout a plan for acquiring some of the
buildable land within the County so that we don't end up where we are now OYer and over in the
future? It's time for us to lay a plan on the table and to accept that the CUrrent situation cannot simply
continue long term Without dire consequences as long as our Rate of Growth Ordinance continues to be
based On Hurricane Evacuation.
What will we do with {he Recommendations'!
Frankly, the most crucial point for us is to insist that we HAVE a voice in the response to
the recommendations. The state has long held that a 24 hour clearance time is acceptable,
We can get there, even with additional permitting, without major construction projects,
given that DCA is consistent with their past decisions, So there is no reason for the state
to intervene and insist this decision is theirs. This decision about our future should be one
in which we have a voice.
Minor Points:
I) Typo. page 3, 3.1 Zonal Structure: first paragraph "Monro" should be "Monroe"
2) Inaccuracies in the Table of Contents (have now been changed).
SEP-13-00 0S,58 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052923518
PAGE
1/1
Commissioner George Neugent
R.eSOlUTION NO.
A RESOLVllON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY. COMMENDIN6 THE MARATHON ROTARY CLUB FOR
THEIR EFFORTS IN CREATE A CHILDREN'S PARK
- 2000
WHEREAS. the Marathon Rotary Club put a temporary down payment of $20,000 on land
next to the under-construction Marathon Community Park; and
WHEREAS, the Marathon Rotary Club would like to hire leathers and Associates to
design a Children's Park on this property: and
WHEREAS. the Marathon Rotary Club and the people of the community need to raise
approximately $150,000 in order to create this Children's Park: and
WHEREAS, the Marathon Rotary Club needs the people of Marathon to donate time,
labor, materials, money. and ideas for fund-raising: now, therefore
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA hereby
commends the Marathon Rotary Club for their tireless efforts to organize and create the
Children's Park.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of said Boord held on the day of September, 2000.
Mayor Shirley Freemon
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner 6corge Neugent
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L.KOl..HAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
By
Deputy Clerk
Mayor/Chairperson
Jdl"CscQmkldspark
APPROveD AS TO FORM
8~_
DATE '7 .. /i - ('I29
/~ /3
c::.::
w
o
z
~
V)
~
<
o
C2
o
IZ
E
III
fa)
..
M
M
Ie
--
III
In
.:.=
..
III
a.
va
is
z
~
Ie
6)
..
-a
-
--
.I:
u
Ie
o
.I:
..
III
..
III
.
fa)
..
III
6)
..
U
o
..
..
..
o
....
....
...
8
01
~
a.
<1/
V')
':>:.
>0
-.0
:s
':Q
V')
<0
.,...
~:. ~.s ~ ;g.9 ~] g .9 ~ ~ B ~ JS .~ ~ ~.5 t-
'" '" _ 1;j.g :s ~ 0.. '" ol::"O '" 1a ~ :a "0 c U 'o,,",,~ ~
~b 0.. '" ~Oell"''''~~~U =~~ellell~l)l)ell
~ .'" Q 0 I)l).c: '0 ~:s en _ ..a uO'<<I ell = 0.. ell ...
ell 0 '~1;j....l . ~ ~ ,- ~"O 0 ell 0 ~ "'.c: 0 --<:;
:c o..~ "'.c: 1;j:O ~ ~ ell = I)l) ell ~.g 0 ~ U ell ~ ~ -:... 0
e '" e 2 :..c: <<I '" ~ '" Q'" ,-.c: '" .c: .... ell.c: hR O!:"' ~ ell
~ .......:. ",.c: "':s '" u ~ ~ u ',,", '" -"",. :s u
ell ell'~ ...'" '" ~ .-u _ ,~'" ell '" en ~ 0 . = , 0 =
'" .c: ell 0 ~ - - '" 'oJ ell 0 ~ I)l)'- ~"O ell
~ ~ _ o,ell I)l) Sl';; "0"0 ell :.:9 i>> .c: 0.. s::; J5 ell '<<I I)l)-
o ~ o..~ = ;::l = '" ......-! = '~ ... ell a Cll 'C .g '" = 0
ell ell 0 0.= '" a.- <: 0.... '" '" ~.c: ~=.g 0.."0 ell 'C ~
e:= ~ o..ell -= ...: Q ~ _.c: ell !f/ >-. ell ell ~ 0 '" - I)l) ~ ~ =
o .c: .~. u 'oJ ~.c: ~ =... ~ e ~-d' >-. g .9 '" ~ ell
en ~.g = ~.g;;~ 1a ell E-o.~ "'0.. '" 0 ell ,- ~ ~ ~ ::.,.:.1! ~
, u --<:; ~ = _ " '" ~ - "0 ...., "0 ....] .. -
ell '" '" ell" :s.= = '" 0.. ~ ~ e = ~ = "" ell '2 'oJ
~.2 ..c: -d'~. c:: ell ~ 0 (g Gj 0'- I)l) ~ & ~ tl:2 ,'" 1a
-; ,':: ~ ~ =.c: = ~.c: & e G'.l u ~ 'E ;.:::l Qell 2 ~E-o ~:s I)l):g ~ : ,
u I)l)~ :s U'-:;> <;j ~ ,_ ell ,..: e . = ell 'C ]>-. ,
ell ~ = 0 '" ~ ell ell ell 0.. ell ~ ell ~ cd 1a 0 . 0 ~ .-
!;l 0 ,a, 1;02 .c: ...J .g.g ~ -5 ~ e en 'C u u 8 e;.:::l ~ '
Z Ol'o
~ e 0
0.. Ol m
~ >.-
in 0 0
OLL~
~ ~:E
lli'i.n
~ E~~
15 0 0 0
.c .::: 0 U
a._Olo
(jj Ol e '"
15 -oOl
co..., CD
! ~ ..c
__ _ C I-
oe"
0.- e
'" -s 0
.e<..!>ci5'
Ol e '"
-Od)
" >.-
:Eo:g
0>0
Ol~=
..c ,g iii
....(1)..:.
OleOl
.!!! 0 ~
OO:en
-ce
000
-E~
>-
" Ol --
o"~
Ol-
~iii~
ell~ell o ell ell"'''' ell6ell O-!"ci::;' V'lu 1"0 ell"'-d "'ell'"
:s "'" .c: ~ .c: .c:... 'C;; .c: ~.c: ~ '='2.' (".l ell ell ':: ~ ,- ~!;l ~
C" -' >.. -' .... 0 .... 0.""" s... .........., .~ tn .."...., ~ ~ co:
'2 ~ '" .'::"0 '" ~ 8 ell <;j ell U :s ~ ~ :5 e ~'e =:g "'. ~.c:' 0..
:s a ,2 = := 2 '" ~ l.g .c: ~ ~ e '0 '<<1.8 0.."0 Cll .g ~.;!.l.rJ5 ell g 0
~o..~ :s:s~.g'" ~ I)l)=e "''''elli::;'~ ",ell"O...Jell!
~ 8 go ~.o cr' 0 -5 .;!.l ~ 'C;; .9 S 8 ~ ~ ~.g ~ 1a .9 -;'2 S ~.=: 0
~='" o]ell~ell ell"':S ell ",ell 0'" "'=ellU ell'5"'~~~=
ell u '" >-. = = '2 ~.-' e ell.g i::;':. ell 0 I)l) >-. -;::: ~ Q '" '''"'0 ~ ..
"0 'u "0 = 0 0 - '" 0 --<:; ell 0 ~ ~ ell - "'.':;:l ;a
= '" = ell >-. '" ':;j I Q'" a ,- rJ5 u" .9 ~"O J:l ell '=2 = e' ~ e.. l: ~ ~ :s
"'",'" .c:ello..u ll)","O ~~ o...c: 0 .I)l) .c:"O
'" ",. ~ = e :s ~:.a ell .9 0 >< ell ~"O l)l)'O e ~ 0.. ~.= .9 S< '" '>
o '" 0 0 0 b I)l) ell ~ ell '- II),~ I)l)' = '-' .0 "0 '" "0 1:0 11)'-
o .c: .2 ~ e u '" = = 0"0 ="0 ~ = I)l) = ~...-! II) J:l 0 II) ~ ,- II) . ~ "0
N g ~ 0.. = ,_ '" .c: ,_ 0 II) ~ I)l)_ '= ......... ~ ell - '" II) -,~ =
.,; ""2 rJ5 :s]] 8'~ '-. ~ ~ '2 ~ ll,5 ~ i ~] ~ '" '" = as ~ ~ ell g ';'
"0 ~ :Se:a,~ ~ E-o '" ~ 8 ~ ,1a I :s ~ '" ~ ~ e';::l 11)"0 g.:5 ~.g = ~.g ~ ~
a ~ II) ~ II) ~ ~ = c5 :s la e :;>"0 ,'- Sl ca ~ 1a.c: 0:;> ~.g"O'" <: =
o '0' e <;j - ,'" ~ ~ ~ V'l j:Q ~ ~ e ~ := = ~ ell Q 0 "0 .g ~.- c 0 "0 ':;3
~ ~ 0 ;;j '" '" '" _ 0 u 0 :s ~ '" I)l) ell I =.- II) ~ -< c '"
I)l) 0.. u e ~ 0.. o..~ ~ ~ ,2:; u. .0"0 0.. '" 0.. '" ~ .g ..B ~ '" :a
~
~......
~ ~ ~
~ ~.~
~ ~ ""'.
~- ~
~~~
~ .. ~
~ .--ti '5
C ~ lo....
~~~
.'" ~,~ :!s t:' ~,,!.,:!s '0 II) ~ II) = ell 6 ="0 II) C II) I
C II) ~ '" .. > ~ .c: 0 ~ ,- .g 0.. 0 II) ,!;3 I)l),d >-.
11)"0 ~ :a':;j 1)l)~.9.c: .~...,..: e 8 ~_ .... ,- E-o '"
J:; =!::, ~ _ '" = u ~ O~' I)l) G'.l-
~:sa~0~'3~0 =II)O~~ ~B '" .9"Otio..
....'" II)U ~uu O.c:~:S"'U~ . ",o.g.,;
u. c.N ell =... I)l) II) -5 ~ 5 0.."0:2 ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
'" = ,_ ;::l !::] 0 = --<:; '" ':;j 0 1I);.:::l a ~ ~ C 1a '" 0 ~
o = ca'o..~ ':;3" ~.c:S ~ (gu e 8.... ~ ~ B = '"
B.c::s~"''''-;ec "'~ol)l)o..lI) 00 '" 0..
~ <;j e 0.5 ~ 0 II) ,- ~ = "'.5 0 u ell ~ ~ ell ~ 'u ~ '"
t)~e>-'0~1)l)5e o~"O~1a:;:;.E!c.g .E!0;.:::l=
o ~ 0 ;;! ~ ~ I)l) ~ '0 e '" S 1I):g .: U 8.c: i-U ~ ~.~
.~ u ~ t:: ].- ell'c;; ~ "0 to;;..c: :s '" i>> >-. U ,- ~...... a '"
t::.9 5 ca..E ~ tl]:s >-.~ ~ II) ~o '" a "':.2 U "0 0.. ell
.E ~._ ell....1I) ..:: '" :..g ,':: - "':C <;j II) >-..... 0.. ~ J:l = .'" "0
.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ... _ U _ "'.- --<:; ,'Y 0 c .. 0 '" - >-.
II)OU"'c~~~Gj ~o..~"O"-~~-d'o~",Gjc
ellc2~"'a.c:a"O o>~OC~lI)lI)o1a~ell~~'"
t: ~ ~:~.s >-..g ~ 1a ct: ~ g ~: c:g t:;- ~ t: ~] 8'
'" 0 '" ,':: - --<:; ::""2 = 0 c.c: 0;"; a J:l QUO
0.. U I)l) = U.. .... ._ U ,_ ~ ol:: ~ ~ ...9 ....l '" U
ZE
08
en"'
a.. $
:Eg
c;;~
-~
c@
zc
<(0
0:'"
m~
>'u;
m.o