HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Building Department Staffing Levels• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Agenda Item No. 3
January 27, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Building Department
Jay Elbettar, Building Director, (949) 644 -3282
jel betta r@ city. newport- beach. ca. us.
SUBJECT: Building Department Staffing Levels — Contract Plan Checkers
Versus Staff Plan Checkers
ISSUE:
• Should the City Council authorize one additional plan check engineer position and half a
permit technician position to reduce the volume of plan checks done by outside
consultants and to improve customer service?
DISCUSSION:
Background:
In 1991, the historic normal construction activity decreased due to the declining
economy and continued its decline until 1995. Since 1995, the construction activity has
steadily increased and leveled off in 2003, to 2.6 times the 1993 volume (Exhibit 1).
In 1994, the City cut back staff in all departments due to the slowing economy and the
loss of property tax revenue to the State. At the same time, in July 1994, the Building
Department assumed the fire alarm and fire sprinkler plan check function from the Fire
Department in lieu of laying off one of the plan check engineers. This change also
streamlined the plan check process. In June 1995, the grading engineer was laid off
due to staff cutbacks and the plan check staff was reduced from four engineers to three.
Following the layoff, construction valuation almost doubled in fiscal year 1995/1996 and
continued to climb from $79,692,000 in 1995 to $220,623,000 in 2000 and back down to
$187,489,000 in 2003. Construction valuation is projected to be $215,000,000 for the
• current fiscal year based on valuation ending November 2003 (Exhibit 1).
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 2
•
Current Work Load:
Currently and for the last four years, the plan check and permit processing work load
has been at an all time high (Exhibits I, II, III). Plan check engineers and permit
technicians have to cope with higher customer service demands at the permit counter.
Approximately one third of walk -in customers come in to see an engineer for technical
information or to ask clarification questions on a plan check done either by staff plan
check engineers, or by plan check consultants. Providing this service requires a full
time plan check engineer position (see Exhibit III) at the counter.
In July 2000, the Building Department assumed the responsibility of plan check, permit
processing and record keeping for construction within the Harbor, which was previously
done by Public Works and the Marine Division of the Fire Department.. This was done
in conjunction with the reorganization of the Marine Division under the Harbor
Resources Division.
In June 2002, the Building Department assumed the responsibility for enforcement of
council policy L -18 and L -22 dealing with design and construction water quality
requirements. In July 2003, this responsibility expanded to also include the State Water
Quality Management plan requirement for construction projects.
In July 2002, we streamlined the plan check process so that 90% of plan checks will be •
done in less than four weeks. This increased the demand on the plan check engineers
and a higher demand for outside consultant plan check service.
The annexation of Newport Coast and Bay Knolls in July 2002, and Santa Ana Heights
in July 2003 increased the building stock by 15 %. Santa Ana Heights has been going
through a redevelopment boom, which includes the construction of several office
buildings. Four of them are currently in plan check. More office buildings are still in the
design phase and others have been completed and are submitting tenant improvement
projects into plan check.
Measures Taken:
To keep up with the increased workload, we have taken the following measures:
a) Plan Check Consultants
The Building Department signed agreements with four plan check consultants
and have been sending overflow plan checks out to them (Exhibit IV shows that
by valuation about 61% of plan checks are done by consultants). While plan
check consultants are a common relief used by cities to address fluctuations of
plan check workload, it is usually to satisfy a temporary need and has many
shortfalls. Plan check consultants provide services for many jurisdictions and •
have to be trained and informed of local requirements. Consultants tend to run a
mass production operation, which does not render the same quality plan check
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 3
• and customer service that staff delivers. Also, some of our plan check staff time
is used monitoring the quality of consultant plan checks and reviewing and
approving revisions to the approved drawings. In general, our customers prefer
that their drawings be plan checked in -house and prefer dealing with familiar and
readily accessible city staff. While we closely manage and coordinate projects
checked by consultants, we constantly receive requests from customers to have
their projects checked "in- house ". We also receive complaints regarding
consultants lacking customer service. Outside plan checks constitute a major
portion of our customer complaints.
b) Expedite Plan Review
In addition to using consultants for overflow plan check, we also use the
expedited plan check service to check small projects (additions and alterations)
on a fast track. Permit applicants for small projects can request an expedited
plan check and pay the applicable fee. Permit technicians and plan check
engineers spend additional time to process these special service requests.
c) . Tenant Improvement Fast Track
Submittals for tenant improvement projects have been separated from the rest of
• submittals and fast tracked to allow tenants to move in quickly into tenant space
since the plan check associated with this type of project does not include
reviewing structural design. While this process accelerates review and approval
of tenant improvement projects, it impacts the plan check turnaround time for
other projects.
d) Restoring Cancelled Position
Because of the sustained high construction activity over the past ten years and
the discontent of our customers with plan check consultants, we proposed during
fiscal 2000/2001 budget process and the City Council approved that we
substitute and fill the previously authorized vacant grading engineer position with
a plan check engineer position. In October 2000, we hired a plan check engineer
in place of the grading engineer.
Higher Service Standard
The Building Department increased its service level over the last seven years to provide
a higher degree of accuracy and care in plan check and to provide better customer
service. This increased the time necessary to provide plan check and permit
processing service.
•
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 4
Consultant versus In -house Plan Check
•
Notes:
1. City pays an average 70% of the plan check fee collected for jobs sent to
consultants. 30% of the plan check fee is kept by the department for processing,
coordinating and checking the quality of plan check.
2. The City currently employs four plan check engineers. Each engineer checks an
average of $20 Million worth of construction valuation per year. We estimate it
would require hiring four additional engineers to do all the plan check by
department staff at the current construction activity level.
3. Construction activity has been very high during the last four years and the
Building Department relied on outside consultants for overflow plan check since
1997. We expect the construction activity may drop to an average valuation of
$150 Million per year when the economy improves and interest rates increase.
At that level, six plan check engineers could plan check approximately $120 •
Million worth of construction and $30 Million worth would be checked by outside
consultants.
Staff Plan Check Engineers
Consultants
Types of Projects checked
• Single - family dwellings (tracts and
• New single - family dwellings
complex custom homes)
• Major residential additions
• New non - residential structures (office
and alterations
buildings, churches, mixed -use buildings,
etc.)
• Residential additions and alterations
• Additions to commercial buildings
• Tenant improvements
• Harbor structures (docks, piers, seawalls,
etc.)
• Fire alarm, fire sprinkler
• Miscellaneous permits over the counter
(Minor residential additions and
alterations, re -roof, fences, retaining
walls, patio covers, etc.)
• Revisions to drawings for projects under
construction including those originally
checked by consultants
• Coordinate projects checked by
consultants and review the quality of work
Number of Projects
883 + 1478 misc. projects checked over the
486
checked in
counter
12002-2003
Construction valuation
$73,468,925
$115,357,000
Notes:
1. City pays an average 70% of the plan check fee collected for jobs sent to
consultants. 30% of the plan check fee is kept by the department for processing,
coordinating and checking the quality of plan check.
2. The City currently employs four plan check engineers. Each engineer checks an
average of $20 Million worth of construction valuation per year. We estimate it
would require hiring four additional engineers to do all the plan check by
department staff at the current construction activity level.
3. Construction activity has been very high during the last four years and the
Building Department relied on outside consultants for overflow plan check since
1997. We expect the construction activity may drop to an average valuation of
$150 Million per year when the economy improves and interest rates increase.
At that level, six plan check engineers could plan check approximately $120 •
Million worth of construction and $30 Million worth would be checked by outside
consultants.
C
•
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 5
SUMMARY
The plan check group has elevated its quality standard and decreased its plan check
turn - around time. The plan check process has been streamlined by coordinating the
plan check with other departments which participate in the process. It acquired the plan
check of fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan check duties from the fire department and plan
check of Harbor structures from Public Works. Plan check staff also checks compliance
with recently adopted council policy on water quality and mandated Federal Clean
Water Act construction requirements. The group's scope of work has increased by
approximately 15% due to annexations and struggles to keep up with the increased
construction activity from a construction driven economy. The need for additional staff
is permanent and we feel should not be permanently solved by hiring outside
consultants. Current plan check staffing is at the same level it was in the 80's when
construction valuation averaged less than half the current level.
Fundinq Availability:
The additional staff cost would be completely offset by the reduction in consultant fees.
The following table represents the construction valuation, plan check revenue and
expenditures and consultant fees since the department began utilizing them for overflow
plan check services.
Fiscal Year
Construction
Valuation
Total Plan
Check
Revenue
Plan Check and
Permits Division
Expenditures
Consultant Fees
(Included in Division
Expenditures)
1996/1997
$204,000,000
$774,756
$187,555
1997/1998
$225,000,000
$960,870
$188,534
1998/1999
$303,000,000
$1,111,144
$239,900
1999/2000
$221,000,000
$1,161,599
$292,322
2000/2001
$227,000,000
$1,293,712
$1,091,300
$280,947
2001/2002
$145,000,000
$1,124,955
$1,143,688
$274,540
2002/2003
$187,000,000
$1,366,915
$1,299,669
$438,691
*Expenditure figures are not available for these years when the Plan Check and Permits
Division budget was not reported separately within the Building Department budget.
• Total cost of one proposed engineer position (Step 4): $88,903
• Total cost of one proposed half technician position (Step 4): $30,028
• • Total cost of two engineers and half a permit technician
position: $207,834
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 6
The Building Department charges fees for plan check and inspection services. We •
expect that revenue from plan check based on an average $150 Million annual
construction valuation will cover the division's proposed staff costs and remaining
consultant costs.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Faisal Jur u Building Official , ay E ettar, Building Director
FJ /mg
Attachments: Exhibits I through V
COWCO SUMICOMCO rep 1-27.04
•
•
U
U
F
3
N
C
O $:
C
C $
O
N
7 $
N
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 7
Exhibit i
Construction Valuation
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004'
Years
Exhibit ii
Number of Plan Checks per Calendar Year
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004"
Years Projected
Cl
V) 2000
of
w
i
O
1500
H
t000
UL
O
•
Building Department Staffing Levels
January 27, 2004
Page 8
Exhibit fit
Customer Log 2002 — 2003
00-02 Nov -02 bu -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 Mar -03 Apr -03 May -03 Jun -03 Jul -03 Aug -03 Sep -03 00-03
$450,
$400,
G1
V
w $300,000
$250,000
CL
LJ $200,000
Eno
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
0 $0
# OF CUSTOMERS ASSISTED
■ # OF CUSTOMERS ASSISTED BY AN ENGINEER
❑ # OF CUSTOMERS THAT WAITED MORE THAN 30 MINS
Exhibit IV
Professional Technical Services Expenditures
$436 691
$397,000
$292,322
$280,947 $274,540
$239,900
$tB7,555 $188,534
$1•'10,807
$ 78,835
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*
Years
II,
Building Department Staffing Levels 1
January 27, N134 1111
Page 9
Exhibit V
Building Department Revenue vs. Budget
95 -96 96 -97 97 -98 98 -99 99 -2000 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003-
2001 2002 2003 2004`
Fiscal Year 'Projected
Revenue
❑ Total $ Budget ® Total $ Revenue
zl< —�
00
Q.
0
CD
70
v
3
CD
cn
v
c�
r
CD
CD
J
\: j
W-
C
O
�
Z
CD
CD
�o
O
3
CD
CD
M
o
J
\: j
11
A
!
I
Q
10
I
N
tD (� U
f••� I
....�.__...
� —•`
�
`Y
�
Cm
� L
AAA
�
r
o
ifl
I
I
�
p
]
1
m
�
N
n
A
n
000 �
n
z
w
°
In
0
a
0
3
a
s
-
0
lo
�
a
�
w m
IL
G C0 p -0 =
CD Cfl :3 Q �. CD
ED
(C) ,{ CAD (D Ol
CD O n n
b9 = C:
{�9 N 0 ,- q-
N �+
_ N CD CD
0') 0 3 -o c
E o a
o' ° o -n :3 (.0
CD
CD O
O N 5' (Q 0 -0
n • CD
CD
CD O � CD O
� O
(D 3
CD O
O
v 3
{�9 O
O CD Q
' o
DE
0
O
CL
U1
�D
N
O
C
C7
CD
O_
CO
CO
W
CO
CO
CO
CO
U1
CO
CO
d7
CO
CO
v
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
W
N
O
O
Construction Valuation
(in Millions)
-69 -69 -69 -69 -69
N N W W
O O O O O O O O
r 1
V!
�F
n
�F
n
r-F
✓�F
D
0 CD
CD
CQ -
< C)
CD CD O
Z
CD CD
o 0-
3 ccr: -0
3 Q ;::-
CD -3• n
�.(Q o
v v
0 o
cr
o
o 3'
CD' 0-
�Cn
CDv
cn
o D
cn'
� o �
CD o
N
M 0
CD CD
CD � �
CD
m 0 c�
O
CD CD
(n = v
m 0
Q) o CD
c�
o
O
0 � c(n
CAD 3
cn
CD
O
m CD
CD
00-0
v
Q _.
0 r _
N�
(n
-0 N
CD O
0 O
O O
O CD
C.
c
O
c�
o
(n -0
v
3
CD
o c(n
�3
C: CD
cQ
0' -0
*v
O
7 :r
0
v
a
�
<
m
0 0
CD CD �
n O -�
_ C: CD O =t n
� O 0 <'
o
0-0 v v
�
3 0
CD CD o CD
cQ ( CD
CD cD v 3
Cn m o
((n �
can' 0 0
�
CD
.+. — 0
CD 3
CD
�
w�
o cam' v
CD m
CD �
Fii,kqq
MMI
MMI
CD
O
•
•
O
O CTI
O
O
CF)
O
O
J
O
O
Cb
n
¢1
CD
� O
� O
¢1
O
Al O
mi
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
H
W
CD N
C) O
CD 4'
Q
F}7
Number of plan checks
N N W W
U1 O U1 O U1 O U1
CD CD O O O O O O O O CD
VJ
f1
n
I
CD
nT
C7
V
C
Cr
3
r--F
^�F
A
V
Q Q Q
T T T
C C C
cn cn cn
m m m
m m m
A A A
cn cn cn
= cn cn
a � �
.--� H H
a � �
m pO
O l<
O Z
p m
m Z
H
a m
Z m
W p
O
Z
O
n
O
N
O
O
N
0
A
0
N
O
O
W
T
N
Q
b
w
O
O
w
a
0
w
3
0
w
c
0
w
0
W
a
c
0
w
N
ry
v
0
w
O
n
O
W
# OF CUSTOMERS
N N
0 O 0 pO 0
O O 0 O
r--F O
3
CD
a (r
N
C)
C)
N
I
N
O
O
W
••
m
c
o.
J
(D
(D
?n
A
A=
m
�::
v
m
m
m
m
m
v
m
N
I
v
y
n
N
O
°
(D
N
(D
D
D> )
N
°
tJ 11
m
m
0
—
o
n
s
o
C1
>
(p
�%
(D
3
v
�,
n'
(D
m
l
7
-0
7
J
v
n
n
zr
J'
Z7
(SD
0
O �
7 (D
v
W
3 O
A
00
V
W
V
(D
0]
A
O
O
J 5.
W
W
3 O
W
V
(0
0)
N
0]
CD
N
m
m
3
0
0
o
N
—
i
cri
N
V
V
V
O O
V
O
W
0]
V
l
in
m m
n.
N
n (D
<
n.
7
O
j
V
CD
c
v N
O
Q)
-�
W
W
O
�'
••
m
c
o.
J
(D
(D
?n
A
A=
m
�::
v
m
m
m
m
m
v
m
m
I
v
y
v
O
°
(N D
C.
v
D> )
N
O> J
tJ 11
m
C7
—
a
s
>
>
(p
�%
(D
v
�,
n'
l
7
-0
7
J
v
n
n
zr
J'
Z7
(SD
v
W
m
3
i
0
0
N'
in
in
Q
in
n.
n.
O
O
o
�'
Q
v,
(AD
0-
O
O
N
O
CL
m
N
CD
O
O
CD
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
W
CO
CO
CO
(0
W
W
O
O
O
O
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(Jt
(Jt
(Jt
(Jt
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(It
(It
(It
(It
O
O
O
O
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
m
0)
0)
O
O
O
O
(It
(It
O
O
N
N
O
O
V
(It
00
()t
00
N
00
0)
N
A
O
V
A
00
V
N
z
c
3
Q
N
(D
_
N
_
0)
A
V
Q)
l
V
(It
O
W
O
O]
N
V
A
m
V
00
-.
00
N
A
0]
V
0
7
A
Q)
(o
Q)
N
W
W
co
N
W
W
-�
CO
O
(0
�
C
N
A
A
A
CO
CO
(0
CO
()t
(It
O
-�
O
O
CO
N
N
(Ji
m
W
(7i
A
W
W
00
00
0)
-.
A
V
V
O
m
r
m
O
CO
G
Z
f»
I
0
C7
N
N
A
O
V
/T
Z
C
m
7v
m
-v
0
T
0
/T
0
z
0
m
n
m
W
m
/T
N
O
O
W
®
1
o
o
o
cn
—9
T�
cn -n N
D
0 0 3
CD
C
M
_
m
3
N
�r
(Q CD (D (D
C D O
(n
Cl.
c
X
N
(D O 7
N
_ v O
�'
O
(D
v
� [n O
(n
v
o
chi,
O
CD
CD
(D
Q
D
Cl.
Q
V
00
N
N
O
o
m
A
V1 7
N
-_
.
(D
CD
N
O <
O
CD
O
�
S C
N
N
O
��
D
—
A
W
V
w
N
N
O
O n
v
O
(o
CD
O
01
W
W d
v
O
o.
7
O
r
O
1
O
V
7
N
N
T
FH
O
N mo
n W
d <
z
A
d N
N
A
V
w
W
C
m
O
O
Q
W
N
V
W
O
-' V A
A
A
N
N
co
N
V
V
A
V
W
(D
69V
49
N
49
6G
49
0)
(O
O
N
W
W
49 49 49
W A
CO
W
-.
N
co
O
cn
O
('I,
(O
O
rJ
d
N,
O N
W
W
O
O
O
O
CY)
O (), O
O O O
O
W
A
V
Ul
W
-co
O
L"
O
O
O
O
O
V
O O O
V
00
M
O
O
O
M
O
C(D
�(
IL2
O A
O
V
0
4 -1'
M
Z
G)
"®
m
X
cn
C
O
nZ
--1
!T
m
T
3
Z
'-i
n
0
m
C)
m
3
co
m
7u
N
O
O
W
C
_
3
N
N
N
v
�
o
O
CD
CD
S :3
N
Ul
V
00
N
N
O
m
A
V
CD
N
O <
O
O
�
S C
N
N
O
m
W
N
V
N
O
V
A
W
V
T
O
O n
O
O
01
N
W d
(J
CO
N
O
O
r
O
1
O
V
T
FH
O
N mo
n W
d <
O
A
d N
N
A
V
w
W
m
O
O
O
nZ
--1
!T
m
T
3
Z
'-i
n
0
m
C)
m
3
co
m
7u
N
O
O
W
CD �
CQ N
=j' O
O O
O O
r+
O CD
O CD
� O�
v U)
U
CD 0
O
CD CD
C
CD
QL
v
='
CD
0
T'
E
� � �
. m
O '{ 0 CAD
0 T
n CD
0 T Q
U - _0
m v
0
CD =' CD
0 CD <
T' 0 C.
,{ O cr
r+ I<
CD
O N�
COD -0 O
cn CD
O CD
3 3
CD CD
v
0
cn
r+
r+
cn
0
c
13
0
O
v
FT
13
CD
r+
='
CD
77
CD
0-
cr
I<
cn
CD
O
-h
='
CD
7
O
cn
r+
r+
cn
07
0
0
O
CD
N
N
C
CD
N
CD
1
1
1
/(D
V C-11
1
VI
_n 1
W
N
O
N O
N
O
O
1
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
W
ON
O
CD O
C) �P
CD
CL
$ Expenditures
V
MMI
O
CCD
Y -
O
X
CD -i
:3 CD
Q. n
• r
l ^�
i
rCD
V )
C�/
/'
�
//
CD
/n
rrC^D
VJ
N
N
4&9
W
W
A
A
O
O
O
O
C-11
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
MMI
O
CCD
Y -
O
X
CD -i
:3 CD
Q. n
• r
l ^�
i
rCD
V )
C�/
/'
�
//
CD
/n
rrC^D
VJ
mom-
V
MMI
O
CCD
Y -
O
X
CD -i
:3 CD
Q. n
• r
l ^�
i
rCD
V )
C�/
/'
�
//
CD
/n
rrC^D
VJ
N
O
'�
c
6
6
7
c
7.
CD
N C
N m
O
Om
W N
C
CD
m
C
CD
d
`G
m
O
m
N
m
S
n
7-
m d
ffl
00
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
00
W
W
d
Cl)
< 0
7
7 m
N
a)
(D
CD
C c
N
N
C
a
c
Cl)
CD
a
n
O
cn
.
v
m m
- v
r.
v
3
3
�
m
:
o
CD
a
cn
-°
o
o
'o
C
O
.
Q
a
ay
m
0
0)
. N
C
m
O
^: D
7
(p
a
CL
y
C
-7
(D
M N
v
N 3
d
7
(cD
7
N
0
(n
::r
�
p y
cn
N
N
n
N
CD
N
(^Q
C
o
m
(D
7 0
v
v G
m
Q
d
7C
m
CD
CD p
p
c
v
.Cm-.
v
CD
CL
CD
CD
CC cy
CL
cr
=. m
p
a m
m
m
cn
cn
7
(' N
(D
j p
m
o
n�
d
7
CD
Om
m
m c
v
cn
m
c
a
m
r
m
o
(D
CD
� m
_0
N
O
v
CD
CD
x
7
CD
(y
CD
d
i
CL
Q
•
•
00
0)
N
W
v
3
Z
N
a
v
O.
`2
°
v
y
n
o
v
y
3
0
a
m
N
>
>
v
y
c:t v
3_.
Df
CL
N
CL
:
CD
O
=
cn
7.
N
N n
E
O
r�
V •
ArF
w Wm
CD
V •
1
O
r�
V •
CD
V
� I
CD
nT
/\
N
(O
W
W
J
9
❑
(O
W
�
O
N
—
co
4r.9
OD
C
�
Q
(D
1p
®
N
0
O
0
O
i
Efl
N
o
O
O
N
O
G
(D
ID
ID
N
N
00
00
N N
00
00
W N
L7 N N
cD O
00
G CD O O
CD
N W
A
CD n
W
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
64 -' N N W W A A
U7 O U7 O U7 O cn O U7
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
69 O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
W
CL
rn�
\V
CD
CD
MMI
rf 3
CD
CD�F
rn\
\V
`CD
VJ
W
((^L^
�.c
\V
rf
R
N
N
N
--`
--`
M
_...
O
O
O
ax
CD
(p
n
N
0
N
0
N
0
CD
CD
�
O
O
O
O
(p
N
O
0
O
0
O
O
(D
\
0)
D)
NN
N
N
p
0
CD
CD
v
O
o
N
CD
0
(�
F5
O
CD
m
0
N
=
O
CD
a
CD
v
((A
N
(D
o
v
<
v
v
0
EY
m
<
Q
O
O
N.
O
(D
O
(D
CD
3
..
(n
O
N
SCD
O
CO
CD
CD
00
4
pu
C
69
69
••
69
a
N
69
n
l
.l
< O
00
N
C)
V
N)
w
O
00
00
d
CD
N
CD
�
(D
P
CJ1
N
W
O
�CD
O
CD
CD
n
°o
°o
°o
�
°o
°o
C)
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�* n
O
O
O
(D
O
O
O
O
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
7
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
"i
�
0
. l
_N•
O
\ /
0)
O
R
N
N
N
--`
--`
--.
_...
m
O
O
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
(A
O
O
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
n
N
\
O
CD
co
\
0)
D)
NN
N
N
--•
--•
O
O
O
O
(D
(D
(D
(D
w
N
--•
O
CD
00
V
pu
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
n
l
.l
< O
00
N)
CJ1
V
°o
°o
°o
°o
°o
°o
C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�* n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7 O
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
7
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
"i
�
0
. l
\ /
0)
N
CD
�
-'..
0)
V
< S D)
�
A
w
-..•
-...
O
A
(D
CD
Cfl
V
Cfl
.a
W
V
0
(Ti
(Ti
N
CD
A
O
0)
M
N
--.
p
(D r* n
CD
A
Cfl
N S
CD
w
_...
x
x
x
x
Q.
_ (D
rn
00
o
c z R
CD
00
o
�N�,
cn
°�.
K o
c
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
Q- (On
A
N
N
N
N
--•
--•
(p (D
A
O
N
Q
000
(D
00 00
�
C1
A
A
N
O
W
Q
CD
(Ti
--•
O
V
N
O
A
(Ti
.N.. N (D
N
O
7
W
C
c
\V
O
MMI
3
f1
O�
^ 1V
J
CD
nT
CL
V
CD
MMI
3
r-+.
CD
0
C�
O