122-92 Ordinance
,--- ---,-------,,--, -..,-
, , .
, RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No._ __12_2_~_9_2__m Passed____ -- ------------------- mm19___
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
,,-. RUMPKE WASTE, INC.
FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
"'-
WHEREAS, the current solid waste management contract expires
on December 31, 1992; and
WHEREAS, bids were received for these services on October 22,
1992, and Rumpke Waste, Inc. was determined to be the lowest
and best bid for the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINE~ by the Council of the City of
DUblin, state of Ohio, of the elected members
concurring:
section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contractual agreement with Rumpke
Waste, Inc. for residential solid waste management services as
defined and described in the specifications for bid, from
January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1995, with an option to extend
through the fourth and fifth years (1996, 1997) upon mutual
agreement of both parties.
section 2. That this Ordinance be, and the same hereby is
",... declared to be an emergency measure for the preservation of
public peace, health or welfare of the residents of this City,
........ and for the further reason that the present contract for waste
management services expires on December 31, 1992, and
therefore the Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
Passed this ~ day of ~ , 1992.
I
ATTEST:
~(L ~A:-
Clerk of Council
I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Irosolutien ~re p~sted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the OhIo ReVIsed Code.
I""'""
, ~a(7~
~ Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
'"~'!1"'""""",,,~~_,"',',""VF<''''''
, ,
,
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager /.
INITIATED BY: Dana L. McDaniel, Management Assistant
DATE: November 12, 1992
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Services
If/II!I'">'
Please find Ordinance No. 122-92 attached. This Ordinance gives authority to the City Manager
to enter into a contract with the successful bidder for solid waste management services. At the
time of this Memorandum, a recommendation as to who should be awarded the contract was not
yet formulated. I am still in the process of evaluating the two finalists out of three contractors
who submitted bids. The two finalists are Johnson Disposal, Inc., the City's present waste
hauler and Rumpke.
In summary, the upcoming solid waste management service contract will provide the following
services:
l. Refuse: unlimited curbside collection of refuse/garbage as in the past using a one day city-
wide pickup.
Johnson Disposal: $4.96/unit/mos Rumpke: $4.65
2. Recycling: unlimited curbside collection of co-mingled recyclables to include: glass (clear,
brown, green), plastics (numbers 1 and 2), newspaper, aluminum and bi-metal beverage cans.
This contract adds the following items as well: corrugated cardboard and paperboard and
steel/tin cans. The concept of the pickup will remain the same as before, whereby, these
recyclables will be placed into a separate truck from refuse and yardwaste. This will ensure that
r recyclables will not be contaminated and will be better for the market place.
Johnson Disposal: $1.27/unit/mos Rumpke: $1. 60
3. Yardwaste: Both contractors have quoted a year-round yardwaste collection program which
will be based on a per household (unit) cost per month instead of a per bag cost. Residents will
no longer pay the $1.00 for a yardwaste bag in order to receive the "curbside composting"
service. I have presented this concept to your Solid Waste Advisory Committee. They are very
pleased with the costs, however, they would prefer that some regulations be developed in regards
to how the yardwaste is placed at the curb. SW AC members feel this new concept will
encourage residents to bag yardwastes, especially grass clippings, instead of continuing efforts
to minimize yardwaste by leaving it lay on the lawn, home composting etc. They recommend,
and I concur, that a disincentive for bagging yard waste is still needed. This disincentive will
most likely be achieved by requiring residents to place yard wastes in a biodegradable paper bag.
-over-
".,.....
~"_~-",",,,~."-"~'~~'~'Q~'~~'~'.''''''-',._~ I ,
. ,
.
"
These bags can be purchased at any local retailer in a variety of styles and prices. Also,
collection and composting operations will be more efficient.
Johnson Disposal: $1.00 Rumpke: $.75
4. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): Recent air quality standards require the removal of CFCs from
such items as refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners etc. prior to land filling and or recycling.
The CFCs must be removed by someone who is certified to do so. We have incorporated in the
-, contract a provision for the successful contractor to provide this service as a component of bulk
item pickup service. Other companies are coming on-line to provide this service as well.
- Residents may use the company of their choice, however the contractor is required to have this
service available when needed. The CFC removal shall be coordinated directly between the
contractor and resident and the resident will be billed directly for it.
Johnson Disposal: $35.00 Rumpke: $39.00
5. Additional Programs: Dumpster services to all municipal facilities and designated parks.
Compartmentalized dumpster service shall be provided to A very park to accommodate recycling
in parks and special events. Billing operations should the City desire this as a future option will
be provided by the contractor. Special pickups for the elderly, disabled and those who choose
garage side service. Christmas tree recycling is also incorporated.
Total Cost: Johnson Disposal: $7.23 Rumpke: $7.00
While Rumpke is the lower bidder, I am still ascertaining which bidder is in fact the best in
regards to their references, plan of operations and most importantly if they can assist Dublin in
meeting the 25% reduction of the municipal waste stream by June 1, 1994.
"l!." At Council's meeting Monday night, I will present my recommendation as to which bidder
should receive the contract. I will also be recommending that the ordinance be passed as an
emergency on its third reading in order to waive the thirty day waiting period.
-.
. . /11.A'
! i' ~
. -
ADMINISTRA TIVE REPORT
TO: All Members of Dublin City Council ~
FROM: Timothy C. Hansley. City Manager / Gbf"..-", _.~
INITIATED "BY: Dana L. McDaniel, Management AssistanY9~fi1
DATE: November 12, 1992
."" SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management Services - Bid Evaluation
- I recommend that you enter into a contract with Rumpke for solid waste management services
to begin on January 1, 1993 and end on December 31, 1995, with an option to extend for two
additional years (1996, 1997).
As you know, specifications for solid waste management services were developed, advertised
and publicly bid. Bids were received and were opened on October 22, 1992, at 4 PM. Bid
envelopes were received from four companies: BFI, Johnson Disposal, Inc., Laidlaw, and
Rumpke.
The purpose of this process is to determine the lowest and best bidder. The apparent low bidder
for the desired services is Rumpke. After evaluating the proposed services of each bid,
conducting reference checks and assessing the bid price proposals, I have determined that
Rumpke can provide at least the same level of service to which the City of Dublin is accustomed
over a three year period, ".."hich will save at least $55,476 compared to the next lowest bidder
(Johnson Disposal).
The following outlines my analysis of the bids:
I. Scope of Services.
A. Refuse collection: unlimited curbside collection of refuse/garbage and bulk items.
B. Recycling: unlimited curbside collection of co-mingled recyclables to include: glass
(clear, brown, green), plastics (numbers 1 & 2), newspaper, aluminum and bi-metal beverage
cans; items added to the new contract include: corrugated cardboard, paperboard, and steel and
tin cans.
C. Yardwaste: Bids were requested for the provision of a "pay-per-bag" program, as
currently provided, and an alternate bid for yardwaste collection on a per unit (household) per
month basis. Yard waste collection services are to be provided year round. Christmas tree
recycling is considered to be a part of this contract.
D. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): Recent air quality standards require CFCs to be
removed from household items such as refrigerators, air conditioners, freezers, etc. prior to
being recycled or disposed of. The CFCs must be removed by someone who is certified to do
so. This contract requires the contractor to make such a service available to residents as a part
of bulk pickup. The resident shall make payment directly to the contractor for this service.
~
,",,_._~'^,--,-""'--""""''''~~"''''''''~''-='--'-';-~~~~"'.'~ ,'"'"" - ,~
""'--~~
I . .
E. Other Services: Other services provided for in the contract include: weekly
dumpster service at all municipal facilities and two parks, recycling service to all municipal
facilities and township fire stations (if desired), two compartmentalized dumpsters to be located
at two parks to accommodate recycling in the parks and at special events. Dumpster for
miscellaneous City uses (Le. special events, disastrous incidents, clean-up weeks, etc.) upon
request by the City. The contractor must possess the ability to conduct billing operations should
the City choose to bill residents for solid waste management services.
.,-
F. Miscellaneous Requirements: Various miscellaneous requirements were incorporated
"-' into the specifications such as vehicle standards, uniform standards, customer service standards,
disposal requirements, observed holidays (New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving
Day, Christmas Day). and public information standards. Rates are tied to an escalation/ de-
escalation formula, which is not tied to tipping fees.
II. Preferred Solid Waste Management Program Design.
A. In summary form, the preferred and recommended program of solid waste
management services should be designed as follows:
Refuse and recycling collection services as described above with collection day on
Wednesday. Unlimited curbside collection of yard waste on a cost per unit (household) per
month basis collected on Monday. These recommended collection days are identical to those
the City currently has. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SW AC) recommends retaining
these collection days for the following reasons:
1. The ability to dispose of yard waste immediately after the weekend, when most
people do yard work.
2. Two collection days will continue to minimize the number of collection
vehicles on the streets during collection days.
3. Collection of refuse at mid-week to alleviate the amount of trash stored at the
residence during the weekend.
4. Maintain status quo to reduce the amount of public education required.
III. Bid Analysis.
A. During the course of preparing bids, bidders sought clarification on several items.
I have attached a letter dated October 20, 1992, from David Harding, Director of Personnel &
Purchasing. This correspondence was sent to each bidder. In this correspondence, Mr. Harding
made one point of clarification regarding the AAA financial rating. As Mr. Harding stated in
his correspondence, "Section 9.1 of the Bid Documents establishes that the Surety Company
providing the bond (performance bond) must have a minimum financial rating of AAA, and in
all respects be acceptable to the City. To be acceptable to the City, the Surety Company
providing the bond must have the AAA financial rating, as rated by at least one of the widely
recognized rating companies (Le. Standard & Poors, Moody's, A.M. Best, etc.)." Bidders
continued to advise us that an AAA rating could not be obtained. Upon receiving the bids, it
was found that no bidder had submitted a performance bond written by an AAA rated Surety
-
.
Company. In fact, it is important to note that Rumpke did not submit a performance bond. It
was assumed by Rumpke that the a performance bond was to be presented at the time the
contract was entered into. I concur that this is a normal practice in many places but was not
intended to be the practice in this case. (The requirement to provide the performance bond at
time of bid submission was clearly specified within the bid documents.)
I have chosen, after consultation with and approval from both Mr. Harding and Mr. Stephen
" Smith, City Attorney, to exercise the right of Section 4.3 of the Bid Specifications which states:
"...Any Bid Proposal, which in the judgement of the City, is incomplete, conditional, obscure,
........... or which contains irregularities that affect the substance of these specifications, may be rejected.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals, to waive irregularities that do not
affect the substance of these specifications, and to accept the bid proposal which, in its opinion,
is the lowest and best bid (emphasis added)." Therefore, staff recommends that the City waive
the AAA rating requirement and the requirement for the performance bond at the time of bid
submission. In staff's judgement, neither the rating requirement nor the failure to submit a
performance bond, at the time of bid submission, affect the substance of the specifications.
Therefore, in the opinion of staff, the two bids ought to be evaluated on the basis of their
relative merits. Should the City choose to adopt staff's recommendation, the contractor will be
required to submit, prior to execution of the contract, a performance bond which "in all respects
is acceptable to the City" (Section 9.1, Dublin Solid Waste Management Bid Specifications).
B. The Bid Tabulation Worksheets, attached, summarize the bids submitted by the four
Bidders.
1. BFI - EFI submitted a letter declining the opportunity to Bid.
2. Laidlaw - Laidlaw submitted a bid to provide services based upon the
Alternate Bid 1 and Alternate Bid 3 services. This bid is not reflective of the
preferred program, and therefore is incomplete.
3. John~on Disposal Inc. - The bid prices submitted by Johnson Disposal Inc. for
the preferred program are as follows: (all bid prices are on a cost per unit per
month basis)
Refuse: $4.96 Recycling: $1.27 Yard waste: $1.00
CFC: $35.00
TOTAL: $7.23/UNIT/MONTH
TOTAL FIRST YEAR COST: $581,292
I"""
--~" --"k."_ ~ . . .." ~'- ,--"" --",,~ "
. . .
.
4. Rumpke - The bid prices submitted by Rumpke for the preferred program are
as follows: (all bid prices are on a cost per unit per month basis)
Refuse: $4.65 Recycling: $1.60 Yardwaste: $.75
CFC: $39.00
TOTAL: $7.00/UNIT/MONTH
~ TOT AL FIRST YEAR COST: $562,800
C. References: Reference checks were made on both Johnson Disposal, Inc. and
Rumpke. I conducted more checks on Rumpke than Johnson Disposal, Inc. because I have
worked with Johnson Disposal and know them best in regards to Dublin's needs. I have no
problems with Johnson Disposal's past performance and feel they could execute the new contract
in the same manner. They have been a good partner in the implementation of the curbside
recycling program and the curbside composting program. Their staff has been most professional
and helpful throughout the course of their contract. I interviewed eight entities who are
presently served by Rumpke and one who recently terminated a contract with them. I found no
evidence that Rumpke could not perform to the standards and specifications of the proposed
contract. Both companies were given equally high regards by the Solid Waste Authority of
Central Ohio (SW ACO). Both companies are investing in managing solid waste in Central Ohio.
Each are developing systems and facilities that will further enhance their ability to recover
resources from the residential solid waste stream. Both companies are integrated into the
SW ACO Solid Waste Management Plan.
IV. Final Analysis
Given staff's recommendation to apply Section 4.3 to both bidding parties, (Johnson Disposal,
Inc. and Rumpke), staff is convinced that each company possesses equal abilities to provide the
required services in accordance with the bid specifications. In the final analysis, it all boils
down to dollars. The difference of $55,476 over a three year period is substantial. Staff found
it difficult to conduct a cost benefit analysis on this $55,476 difference to justify maintaining the
status quo. In conclusion, staff recommends that Rumpke be awarded this contract.
,~""-
-"..~..--_.~-",-, ....~_.',~..~"."-,_......" -
~."--,- ~,_c=~
'.... ...~
. . .
CITY OF DUBLIN
..- 6665 Coffman Road
1, Ohio 43017-1006
'~ne: 614/761.6500 NOT ICE
..' ax: 614/889-0740
TO: All Prospective Bidders
FROM: David L. Harding, Director of Personnel &
purchasing ~
SUBJECT: city of Dublin Residential Refuse, Recycling
and Yard Waste Bid Process
DATE: October 20, 1992
Attached please find a variety of solid waste
statistical data. Although this information was
_provided to each vendor that met with Mr. Dana
McDaniel, management assistant, in the pre-bid
discussions, a prospective bidder has once again
requested a copy of said data. In the interest of
treating all prospective bidders uniformly, this data
is being circulated to all prospective bidders who
previouslY obtained copies of the city's Bid Documents.
In addition, I have also received inquiries from
.*., , 'prospective bidders regarding the section of the Bid
Documents requiring the Contractor to provide dumpsters
to the City at no cost. section 15.1 of the Bid
Documents requires the contractor to furnish dumpsters
(up to 30 yard capacity) to the city at no cost, upon
the request of the city Manager, for special situations
such as special events, natural disasters, clean-up
weeks, remodeling of city facilities, etc. One
prospective bidder inquired as to how many times the
city may request the use of such dumpsters. As
specified in Section 15.1, the city would require such
dumpsters in "special situations", as listed in section
15.1. The city does not anticipate a need for such
dumpsters on a regular, consistent, or weekly basis;
however, the city does not have an identified, set
number of times such a need might arise.
#~,~"-
. . .
-
CITY OF DUBLIN RESIDENTIAL REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARD
WASTE BID PROCESS
PAGE 2 OF 2
I have also received an inquiry regarding the size of
f""~. the recycling containers to be provided by the
contractor. section 24.1 of the Bid Documents does not
specify a set size of container; section 24.1 permits
the Contractor to test various containers with the
approval of the City and further establishes that the
containers must eventually be approved and accepted by
the city.
A question was also raised by a prospective bidder
regarding the required minimum financial rating of AAA
in the section of the Bid Documents governing the
provision of a Performance Bond. A question was asked
regarding whether the AAA financial rating is tied to a
particular rating index (e.g. Standard & poors,
Moody's) . section 9.1 of the Bid Documents establishes
that the Surety Company providing the bond must have a
minimum financial rating of AAA, and in all respects be
acceptable to the city. To be acceptable to the city,
_ the surety Company providing the bond must have the AAA
financial rating, as rated by at least one of the
widely recognized rating companies (i.e. standard,
Poors, Moody's, etc.).
I trust that the information in this Notice, or the
data attached, will eliminate any possible confusion
and will answer questions you may have in the
previously noted areas.
'"'""~
/bae
Attachments
--~~',,~",,",~ tiP<! r !~ if, " MMIti!;l".,*,..,
,f . .
.
.
BID TABULATION WORKSHEET .
fr"~
""'..
00 00
Cl Z Z
Z 0 0
Z 00 i= i=
W z U U
a. 0 W W
0 ..J ..J
i= ..J ..J
0 a. 0 0
iD 0 u U
I- CJ) CJ) en >-
I- en en 0 z <( >- en 0 <( CD
Z <( 0 :::E 0 CD <( 0 :::E C? 0
en ~ :::E j:: i= 0 0 :::E j:: ~
:::E W Cl <'! Cl 5
Cl >- 0 en en j:: <( z u en W en en j:: <( z 00;;
en ce Cl W Z Cl
z W <( 0 0 <( Z Q2. :J ..J 00 0 ~ 0 0 0 <( z CD :J :J 00 o 0
..J ;; 00 ;;it ;; :::!: 0 00
:::E <( >- 00 00 ~ :::E :::E Q2. :J ~ ..J 0 0 :::!: 0 W :::E :::!: CD :J 0 ~:::E
:J 00 W j:: j:: ;;it z z 0 j:: j:: j:: ;;it ;;it z z W :::E
W W >- W ~ ~ I- 0 :::E :::E I-~ 0 j:: :::E 1--
I- 0 a. >- Z Z Z Z 0 0 z j:: j:: z z z z z 0 0 0 j:: z!:::
00 >- :::E I- W -I- (j) (j) Z
I!. :::E :::!: >- Cl z- :::E :::E Cl :JZ
<( 0 Z I- 0 :J :J 0 0 :J <( Z Z <( :J :J Z W :J :J 0 0 W :J Z <(
0 LL 0 0 0 0 _:J
~ 0 ::E a. ~ l;i ;;it ::E ::E ;; C? ::J < CD ;;it -::J Cl ;;it ;;it ::E :::!: 0- ::J CD ~ -
I!. W Cl
l- I- 0 0 0 0_ <( 0- 0 0
0 z <( ce ~ 5 It') o It') <( 0 O!
:J ::.:: 00 Z 0 O! <'! 'en ce N O! ~
:::!: X cO o . <( ce It')
0 I- <( ce Z 0 U :J - - l'l .... <( - l'l ;; ;;
en en I- ~ Ii: 0 :::!: ~ ~~ ~~ Cl Cl ~ ~
00 0 0 0 0
I-
Z en iD iD iD iD
W W ..J 0 ..JO 0 0
:::E en >- ..
~ >- ClW <( W ClW <(w W W W W
:J CJ) W <( - t\I Cl l'l Cl
~ :5 0 w >- 0 W zl- CJ) Cl~ 0 w ~lii en ce z l- ce Z l- ce
0 en LL _en 0 Oce 0 w 00 ce 0 w 00 ce
..J 0 0 W I!. Z >- CJ) w CJ) ..J<( a. Zw iii 00 ..J<( o.w iii 00 :J <( w iii 00 :J <( w
CD - 0 >- <( w w Z :J o~ CJ) :nt w :J o~ WI!. :J 0 ~ I!. :J 0 ~ I!.
::J :5 0 I!. I!. W I!. W I!.
..J 0 0 0 >-0 0 I- >-0 -w >- 0 w >- 0 w
0 z w w o ce I- W I- W
0 0 ..J Z Oce - ce <( Oce 0 ce ce 0 ce
w 0 z ce CDo. ce <( ce <( ce ce
I!. .. ce Z 0 <( w w<( 0 z w<( o a. z w <( a. z w <( a.
o ffi 5 0 0 CD ce ce ce>- I!. ..J ce ce>- I!....J ce ce >- ...J ce ce >- ...J
~8 CD z I!. ::J w - 0 <( w o <( w <( w <(
0 0 0 ce CJ) I!. 0 I- ~ l- I- I- ~ I-
W W W 0 g ..J g 0
u iii ce iii z a. z ce iii II-:. <( <( <( I:=.
"'."-"~~" ....."""""..........'...'
. ' .
.
. .
. BID TABULATION WORKSHEET
~
CJ) CJ)
Z Z
0 0
CJ) i= i=
Z u u
w w
0 ..J ..J
i= ..J ..J
0. 0 0
0 u U
I- CJ) >-
CJ) CJ) Z (!) >- CJ) <( CD
<( 0 0 <( 0 '?
CJ) CD 0 CJ) ...
w ;: CJ) ::E i= ~ 0 ~J: ~ ~
>- 0 0 (!)t: J: u CJ) co w ::E t!l!:::z z:
CJ) a: ::E I- W 0 <Ii z t!lt: :J
..J w CJ) <( CJ)CJ) <(z Z ..J CJ)CJ) ::E 0 CJ) CJ) <(ZO ::E CJ)CJ) CJ) 0
<(CJ) >- w CJ) >- 00 t!lt: CD:J 0 ..J 00 i==" 0 W 0 0 <(z @,<::E 00 0 ~
:Jw >- w ~ ::E::E <(z ZZ ::E 0 ::E::E ZI- ::E 0 ::E ::E CD:J ZZIi==' W ::E::E ::E
0. >- I- U 0
0>- i=="~ CD:J 00 ot: i=="j::" i:: in i==" i==" ZZ 00- ~i==" i=="
::E I- W ZZ Z >- :J- ::E::EZ in t!l Z
11. I- ZZ ::E::E ZZ _z W Z Z 00 zz z
Ou: 0 Z 0. 0 00 66 :J wZ <( t!l ...:J Z ' ':J W <( :J
U ::E w ~ ::J:J 0 0:J '? :J:J <( 0 ::J t!l :J :J ::E::E 000 t!l :J:J CD :J in
1-11. I- ino ::E::E :JO ;no CD in <( in 0 ;no ~ ~
Z<( a: u ~ 00 C! i= ~ 0 ...10 ... 10 0 <( N
CJ) <D <D ...10 C!C! ..JO ~~ oj C\l a: <D ~ cor-- co r-- . ~~ ~ ~ N
::Ex ~ Z cor-- 01 U ' ..J co cD <( ....: MM ' . <D a:
1-<( a: Z 0 U ... - <Ii <Ii ;;;; M z~ :J ...- M t!l ... ~Z:~ <( r--... M M ~
;: u:: u ...... ... ::E ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... t!l ... ... ... ...
CJ) CJ)I-
I- iD iD iD iD
Z CJ)
w W ..J 0 ..J @ @ ~
::E >- CJ)O >- t!lW <( w - w <( N w ;.; w
:J wZ <( CJ) a: t!l I- CJ) a: t!l I- a: t!l I-
U CJ)U: 0 Ow ~\ii 0 t!la: 0 wZ CJ) II 0 w Z CJ) (fi 0 wZ CJ) m
0 wu. Z >-CJ) wen ..J<( 0. zw iD en:J <( iD CJ) :J <( iD en:J ~
0 >-<( 0 WW z:J u;: en -11. w :JU ;: w :J U 3: ~ w :Ju
ou.. ..Jw u..>- 11. >- u..>-
0 o::l Z UU >-0 0 ~a: I- Wu 0 I- W 0 I- Wu 0
ZZ w Ua: <( a: <( U a: <( a: ~
w 0 a: CD 0. a:w a: a:w
a: zo <(w w<( U Z <( Z w ~ Z <(
5 ou CD a: a: a:>- 11. ..J a: a: >- u.. ..J a: a: ..J a: a: >- ..J
CD' 11. :JW - U <( W u~ W <( W ~
0 95 a: CJ)u.. 0 I- !3 I- !3
W W z~ 0 0 ..J 0 g
a: CDZ 0. iD <( R=- <( ~ <(
.-" N
!Z!.
C\l
C\l
0
'-"" -
CJ) CJ)
t!l Z Z
Z 0 0
z CJ) i= i=
W Z U U
0. 0 W W
0 ..J ..J
i= ..J ..J
0 0. 0 0
iD 0 u U
l- I- en >-
I- a: en en Z >- CJ) CJ) <(
Z 0 <( en 0 0 Cl <( 0 0 '? en
::E CJ) 0. ;: 0 ::E i= cu 0 ::E ::E cu
W ~
(!) >- W 0 ::E (!)t: u .0 W i==" i==" .c
en a: a: W en N Z t!l .c a
Z i==" 0 CJ) t!lz Z :J CJ)
..J W <( CJ)en (!) <(z .c -' en en ... 0 0 CJ) <( 'E ::E 0CJ) en
::Eu <( >- Z CJ) C 00 Z CD:J 'E ..J 00 ::E III W 0 <(:J CD :J 0 ::EO 0 0
Z <( zz 0 ::E Z Z W
WZ :JCJ) W ;: ::E::E CD ::J 0 ::E::E i==" 0 0 ::E CD~ $ -::E ::E $
1-- Ow 0. <( >- t::'~ Z Z 00 I- $ u t::"~ (!)z I- $ in i==" i==" ZZ 0 0 0 I- _ t!lt:
en ...i 11.>- ::E ..:. W Zo >- Z Z in -I-
::E::E ::E ::E C z- C
<( <( Ou: 0 Z I- 0 ZZ 0 0 :Jw C <( zz <(< :J c W :J Z 00 W :JZ <(z
;: 0. 66 6 6 :l :l
en U ::E W ~ :J:J ::E ::E 00 :l '? :J:J CD'" 0 :l t!l 0 :J ::E::E 0 t!l -:J CD:J 0
0 I-u.. I- (Of:::" e; cor:- 0 M <( 0 0_ oe
9 z<( a: u 0 0 00 o :J i= C! 0 00 0 0 10 <( 00 ~
a.. ~ CJ) Z ~ ~~ 0 C! C!C! ' -' N ~ <'! 0 C\l a: ci ~ C! C! 0 0 ....: '10 C!C!
-'en ::Ex ..J 10 a: ...
IOU ....: N cD <( M M o .
0- 1-<( a: Z 0 U ... - N ;4; Z:z :J ... - M ... M M ~ <( -... z:z:;;
en en en I- ;: u:: U ... ... ... ... ... ::E ... ... ... ... ... t!l ... ... ...... ... ... t!l ... ...
I- iD iD 'ai
Z CJ) iD
0 W W en ..J 0 ~Pw ~ ~
::E >-CJ) W >- ..
en :J CJ) >- <( (!) W <( W - (!)w N t!l W M (!) W
zz I- en a: zl- ~I I- a: I-
U CJ) 'W W 0 wZ en O(!)a: 0 w 0 w z en a: 0 w z en m
-J: ~>- >- :J~
ffio 0 w CJ) w en:J <( o.ZW iD CJ) iD en :J <( ~ iD en :J <(
0 >- <(0 W W Z :Ju ;: !Q:Jtli w :J u;: w :J U ;: w :J U ;:
:J. 0 ..Jz U U 0 11.>- 0 I- u.. >-0 l- ll. >- 0 Iiii I- u.. >- 0
0 0 ..Jo Z Z Wu a: O-a: <( w ua: Oa: <( w U a: <( w u a:
w z a:w uCDa.. a: uo. a: a: 0. a: a: 0.
u.. .. a: SCD <( w <( z w<( z w <( z w <(
offi 5 0 a: a: a: >- u.. ..J a: a:>- u..-, a: a: >- ..J a: a: >- ..J
~8 CD '11. :J w - U <( W u<( W <( W ~
0 0 Za: CJ) 11. 0 I- !3 5 l- I- I-
W Ow w 18 ..J is ..J 0
UCD a: iD zo. z a: CD <( I- <( <( ~