Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23- Public Services -CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: James R. Howell, Director Subject: MRF/Transfer Station Workshop December 1 12:00 Noon Dept: Public Services Fourth Floor Conference Room A Date: November 18, 1997 wF who Synopsis of Previous Council Action: Recommended Motion: James R. Ho ell l./ Contact person: Tim Howell, Director Public Services Phone: 384-5140 Supporting data attached: N/A Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount Source Finance: N/A Council Notes: Agenda Item No. 10/117 STAFF REPORT In 1992, as part of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element mandated by AB 939, the City of San Bernardino adopted the recommendation to develop a Material Recovery Facility in order to assist the City in meeting it's 50% diversion mandate. During the last five years, the City has undertaken a variety of tentative studies to explore the feasibility of developing a Material Recovery Facility within the City's boundaries. A Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is a facility where either mixed waste or commingled recyclables are separated into marketable components such as cardboard, newspaper and glass, and prepared for sale and shipment to market. In 1995, concerns relating to escalating landfill disposal costs within the County of San Bernardino ($35.50 per ton) and decreasing tonnage charges in Orange and Riverside Counties created an opportunity for the City to explore lower disposal costs through the use of a Transfer Station. A transfer station is a facility where trash collected by refuse collection trucks is transferred to large trailers or containers for shipment to distant landfill disposal sites. In 1995, the Mayor authorized staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the construction and operation of a combination Material Recovery Facility and Transfer Station (MRF/TS). As a result of the RFQ process, fourteen firms submitted responses and six firms were ultimately short-listed. In order to fully examine the feasibility of developing a MRF/TS, staff was authorized in August 1996 by the Council to hire Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, a consulting firm which specialized in economic and engineering analysis of waste systems. Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson has completed their study, and staff has scheduled a workshop with the Mayor and Common Council to review the study's findings and to receive further direction from the Council. i ATTENDANCE SHEET DATE: �z���g7 TIME T�rrNS F�/` MEETING: �T/�� ✓l9�� — J!I rJ Yv2 ,L ('o�n mt�N �vdNt';t /CD L R E i�.23 ` i ;rd NI�Ji�lPie,',�t ,p /Recoti�AR� LOCATION: igcolyre rl a el"n F,�cJciry, Feps'. Note: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 . 3 the signing, psi-10 registering or completion of this document is voluntary, and all individuals may attend the meeting regardless of whether they sign, register or complete this document. ATTENDING: NAME DEPARTMENT C H u.c K i a r% of CTl 14 44 4-71 Q SL� zand►4 �/�dt/4' �il`S� L��/'�L'S ;` 7'"�,L'E' 5q vl CAS t- - ��- R�u� korro-i'me V-/ard t- LOA-i V/f Ss Oy/tJ �i4�Z1 9�m;`N/�S7°1L/`t�0� S C��/ f Ci �Z� CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Transfer Station/ MRF Feasibility Study November 6, 1997 Prepared by: Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195 Newport Beach, California 92660-2311 Phone: 714/251-8628 Facsimile: 714/251-9741 This report is printed on recycled paper and copied on both sides to reduce waste. Ax HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC �' HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON Advisory Services to Municipal Management 3990 Westerly Place,Suite 195 Fremont Newport Beach,California 92660-2311 Newport Beach Telephone:714/251-8628 Fax:714/251-9741 November 6, 1997 Mr. Lynn Merrill Recycling Coordinator Public Services Department, Fourth Floor City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 Transfer Station/MRF Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Merrill: We have completed our Transfer Station/MRF Feasibility Study for the City of San Bernardino (City). The enclosed report documents the study background, objective, methodology, assumptions, limitations, findings, and recommendations. PURPOSE The purpose of the study was to determine whether a transfer station/MRF was cost effective, based on various facility capabilities and configurations. The specific scenarios are described in the table below. COST SUMMARY The cost of each option is summarized in the table below and on the next page. Transfer Solid Waste Scenario Description Station/ System Costs* MRF'Facility Annual Per Ton Cost 1a. Direct haul @ Existing system and $0 $12,679,000 $86.54 $33/ton disposal fee at County landfills. 1b. Direct haul @ Existing system with $0 $12,118,000 $82.72 $28/ton reduced disposal fee at County landfills. HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC Mr. Lynn Merrill November 6, 1997 Page 2 Transfer Solid Waste Scenario Description Station/ System Costs* MRF Facility Cost Annual PerTon 2a. City transfer City transfer station $6.3 million $12,209,000 $83.34 station without MRF capability 2b. City transfer City transfer station $10.9 million $13,352,000 $91.14 station/MRF with material processing capability. 3. City regional Transfer station/MRF $12.0 million $12,674,000 $86.51 transfer sized to accept waste station/MRF from surrounding cities. 4a. West Valley Transfer at Burrtec's $0 $12,726,000 $86.87 MRF (Fontana) West Valley facility. 4b. Agua Mansa Transfer at Burrtec's $0 $12,468,000 $85.11 MRF (Riverside)l Agua Mansa facility. * Includes hauling, processing, transfer, transport, and disposal FINDINGS Our findings are described in Section 3 of our report and are summarized below. Findings - Transfer 1. Continuing to direct haul to County landfills is less costly than using a transfer station, assuming the County tipping fee is reduced from $33.00 to $28.00 per ton. 2. Although building a City transfer station to transfer solid waste out-of-county is slightly more costly than direct hauling to the County landfill (at $28.00 per ton), a transfer station would afford the City with more flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. 3. Depending on the County's future landfill pricing decisions, there is a risk that a City transfer station may be unnecessary and more costly than the current direct hauling system. recycled Lj paper i HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC Mr. Lynn Merrill November 6, 1997 Page 3 4. Non-City (privately-owned) transfer facilities are available to the City at only moderately higher cost than if the City builds its own transfer station. Findings - MRF 5. Adding processing capability to a transfer station will increase the City's current system costs (at $28.00 per ton) by $1.2 million annually, or approximately 10%. However, changes in the market prices of recyclable material could render this alternative more or less attractive depending upon the direction of the price changes. 6. Mixed waste processing of commercial loads at a City MRF will increase the City's diversion rate by approximately 3%. 7. Increasing its diversion to advance toward the AB 939 goals without a City MRF to perform mixed waste processing will require additional generator participation in source separated recycling programs, or use of mixed waste processing capability at a third party MRF. 8. Building a larger regional MRF to accommodate nearby jurisdictions would cost the City less per ton than building a MRF to meet only its own needs due to greater economies of scale. However, it would require the City to undertake a significantly greater degree of financial risk. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. If negotiations for significantly lower tipping fees with the County are successful, do not develop a transfer station or MRF. 2. If negotiations with the County are unsuccessful, develop a transfer station on sufficient acreage to add processing capability in the future. 3. If negotiations with the County are successful and the City does not develop a transfer station or MRF, the City should consider amending its SRRE to exclude mixed waste processing and rely on enhancing and/or expanding source separated recycling programs, or utilize mixed waste processing at a third party MRF. recycled L)paper HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC Mr. Lynn Merrill November 6, 1997 Page 4 We are pleased to have had the opportunity to perform this study for the City. If you have any questions, please call me or David Davis at 714/251-8628. Very truly yours, la 5; t Laith B. Ezzet, CMC Vice President recyUeo L)paper CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Public Services Department Transfer Station/MRF Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Contents Page 1 Background and Study Objective 1 2 Study Methodology, Assumptions and Limitations 3 3 Findings and Recommendations 8 Appendices Appendix 1: Facility Size and Cost Estimates (Aurora Report) Appendix 2: Detailed System Cost Estimates SECTION 1 BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVE EXISTING COLLECTION ARRANGEMENTS The Public Services Department of the City of San Bernardino (City) provides residents with refuse collection, curbside recycling, and greenwaste collection service. A few private haulers provide residential service in some areas. The City competes with several private haulers to provide service to commercial and industrial customers. Both the City and the private haulers offer recycling service to their commercial customers. The City's refuse trucks direct haul to landfills owned by the County of San Bernardino (County). The City disposes approximately 90% of its refuse at the Colton Landfill, which is located in the City of Colton near the La Cadena exit of the 215 freeway. The City takes the remainder of its refuse to either the San Timoteo Landfill, which is south of the City of Redlands, or the Mid Valley Landfill in the City of Fontana. The County charges a disposal tipping fee of $33.00 per ton. RECENT DECREASE IN MARKET PRICES FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL In recent years disposal tipping fees have trended downward throughout Southern California. For example, Orange County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and Riverside County have all lowered their tipping fees from their 1990's peaks. Several landfills are offering discounted rates to customers in exchange for long-term disposal commitments. The opportunity to reduce costs for their solid waste ratepayers has led several Southern California cities to re-evaluate their disposal options. Included among these are a group of San Bernardino County cities (including the City of San Bernardino) that have recently entered into negotiations with the County to lower the tipping fees at County landfills in exchange for long term tonnage flow commitments from the cities. OTHER AVAILABLE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES In addition to the County landfills, the City has access to other transfer and disposal facilities. The two closest facilities that provide solid waste transfer services are: ❑ The Agua Mansa MRF in the City of Riverside (on the north side of 60 freeway off the Market Street offramp). The City may be able to use Agua Mansa for approximately $30.00 per ton (which includes transfer and disposal costs); and, ❑ The West Valley MRF in the unincorporated area between the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana (on Cherry Avenue north of the 10 freeway). The City 11/6/97 1 may be able to use West Valley for approximately $33.00 per ton (which includes transfer and disposal costs). There are several other disposal sites that are available or proposed for Southern California cities. These landfills have a significant amount of existing and potential capacity, and may exert further downward pressure on tipping fees in Southern California. These include: ❑ The Brea-Olinda Landfill in the County of Orange (north of the City of Brea); ❑ The El Sobrante Landfill in Riverside County (south of the City of Corona); ❑ The La Paz Landfill in La Paz County, Arizona; • The proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill in Riverside County (east of the City of Indio); and, • The proposed Mesquite Landfill in Imperial County (south of the Salton Sea). SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS IN SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS A transfer station centrally located in the City of San Bernardino may be useful to nearby jurisdictions who also use the County landfills. However, unlike the City of San Bernardino, many of those jurisdictions have exclusive franchise agreements with private haulers. These agreements sometimes limit those cities to certain pre- arranged disposal options, and preclude them from using a transfer station in the City. MRF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The City has considered developing a MRF/transfer station for several years. In 1995, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the development and operation of a MRF/transfer station within the City. Of the 14 firms that submitted statements of qualifications, six were subsequently chosen by the City to continue in the selection process, including: ❑ NorCal Waste Systems, Inc. ❑ Taormina Industries ❑ Browning-Ferris Industries ❑ Burrtec Waste Industries ❑ Waste Management, Inc. ❑ USA/Western Waste STUDY OBJECTIVE The City retained our firm, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, (HF&H), and our engineering subconsultant, Aurora and Associates (Aurora), to evaluate the feasibility of developing a transfer station/MRF in the City. This report describes the tasks we performed, the project's assumptions and limitations, and our findings and recommendations. 11/6197 2 SECTION 2 STUDY METHODOLOGY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS STUDY METHODOLOGY To evaluate the feasibility of developing a transfer station/MRF in the City of San Bernardino, we performed the following tasks: 1. Conducted a project kickoff meeting and three project status meetings We initiated the project by meeting with City staff to discuss the existing and proposed facilities that would be included in our evaluation, and the five scenarios on which our analysis would be based. During the project, we met with City staff periodically to clarify the data we had gathered, confirm our approach, and to review our preliminary findings. 2. Developed five alternative scenarios Together with City staff, we developed the five transfer/disposal system alternatives described below in Exhibit 1. EXHIBIT 1 TRANSFER/DISPOSAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES I City Facility Ultimate• Disposal System Route Truck Capability of City Accepts Alternative Destination Facility County Tonnage? Site 1. Direct Haul Refuse trucks to Not applicable Not applicable County landfills (current system) Mid-Valley or San Timoteo Landfill • Recycling trucks to Taormina staging area 2a. City Transfer Refuse trucks to Refuse transfer No Brea-Olinda Station City facility only;no recyclable Landfill in Brea Facility Recycling trucks to processing Taormina staging area 2b. City Transfer Refuse trucks to Refuse transfer and No • Refuse to Brea- Station and City facility recyclable Olinda Landfill Material Recycling trucks to greenwaste in Brea Recovery City facility processing Recyclables to Taormina MRF Facility in Anaheim 11/6/97 3 EXHIBIT 1 (CONTINUED) TRANSFER/DISPOSAL SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES City Facility Ultimate Disposal Capability Accepts Out-of- Site System Route Truck Alternative Destination Facility County Tonnage? 3. City"Regional" • Refuse trucks to Refuse transfer and Yes Refuse to Brea- Transfer Station City facility recyclable in Br a Landfill and Material • Recycling trucks to processing R Brea Recovery City facility Recyclables to Taormina MRF Facility in Anaheim 4a.West Valley • Refuse trucks to Not applicable Not applicable • Landfill MRF in Fontana West Valley MRF determined by in Fontana the transfer • Recyclables to facility Taormina staging operator yard in the City of San Bernardino • 4b. Agua Mansa • Refuse trucks to Not applicable Not applicable Landfill determined by MIZF in Agua Mansa MRF Riverside • Recyclables to the transfer Taormina staging facility yard in the City operator of San Bernardino 3. Gathered data We obtained financial and productivity information from the City about its current operations (e.g., budgeted expenses, tons, routes, loads, etc.). We also gathered information about existing and proposed MRF's and landfills associated with each of the five scenarios from City staff and industry sources. 4. Determined City facility requirements Aurora estimated the optimal facility size and costs required for each of the alternatives that involved the City developing a transfer station/MRF. Aurora's cost estimates and accompanying technical memo are included as Appendix 1. Aurora based its facility size, cost, and tipping fee estimates on the following factors: • The current amount of refuse and recyclable tonnage generated in the City; • The amount of available refuse and recyclable tonnage from nearby jurisdictions and the likelihood of that tonnage being taken to a centrally located facility in the City of San Bernardino; and, • The estimated future waste transfer needs of the City over the next 10 to 15 years. 11/6/97 4 5. Estimated and evaluated the cost of the five alternative scenarios We estimated the total cost to the City of each of the alternative scenarios by calculating the impact of each scenario on are defined as follows:of the refuse collection system. These c ost components • Route Truck Hauling - the cost of operating the route trucks that collect refuse and recyclables and haul those materials to a transfer station or landfill. • Transfer - the capital and operating costs of using a transfer station to move solid waste from the route trucks into long haul transfer rof transportation T from the transfer cost component does not include the transfer station to the landfill. ssin - the capital and operating cost of running source-separated Prod P recyclables or mixed waste through t forptransshipment toamaterial brokers. the residual waste, and preparing • Transportation - the cost of operating long haul transfer trailers to transport solid waste to more distant landfills and to transport processed recyclables to material brokers. • Disposal - the tipping fees charged by a landfill for disposal services. Our detailed calculations for the cost components for each of five scenarios is included in Appendix 2. 6. Evaluated non-financial issues In addition to evaluating each of the five scenarios based on its estimated cost alone, we evaluated the non-financial issues such as financial risk, flexibility, and control. 7. Prepared this report Based on the work we performed in the tasks described above, we developed our findings and conclusions and prepared this draft report. ASSUMPTIONS In estimating the City's costs for each of the alternative scenarios, we relied on certain assumptions. We made these assumptions Our asosumistions are listed and organized industry sources, and our own experience. 1' by cost component in Exhibit 2 on the next page. 11/6/97 5 t EXHIBIT 2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS MODEL • ASSUMPTIONS Collection Cost Data ❑ Variable route trucks operating cost per hour Residential: $67.60 j Commercial: $90.65 Roll-Off: $60.42 Tonnage Data ❑ Only City tons are included in the calculation of annual system costs. However,system-wide tons (including private hauler and drop-off tons)were used to determine the optional size of the facility. ❑ 60%of commercial waste stream can be routed into"dry"loads and processed as mixed waste. • Curbside recyclables include 40% residual solid waste. • Dry commercial loads include 75%residual solid waste. Haul Cost Data ❑ Incremental queue time savings at TS/MRF is 10 minutes. • No incremental change in haul cost for recyclables between City MRF and Taormina's current yard. • Recyclables continue to be transported to Taormina's San Bernardino yard in scenarios 4a and 4b. Transfer/MRF Data ❑ Material sales revenue: Residential curbside recyclables - $35 per incoming ton Mixed commercial waste- $8.75 per incoming ton ❑ Annual tonnage growth rate will be approximately 1.5%. ❑ City MRF will accept 140 TPD of imported solid waste. ❑ City MRF will accept 123 TPD of imported recyclables. Transportation Cost ❑ Average hourly transfer/trailer operating cost = $64 ❑ Average tons per load=22 Disposal Cost ❑ Landfill tipping fees: • San Bernardino County: $28.00 • Brea Olinda: $18.27 • Lamb Canyon: $23.75 • -Mesquite rail-haul F.O.B. Colton: $35.00 Travel Times ❑ Surface street average speed=30 mph ❑ Highway average speed = 50 mph 1116/97 6 LIMITATIONS As with any engagement of this type, our work was subject to certain limitations, which are described below: ❑ Our work was based on representations made by City staff and industry sources regarding estimated costs, tipping fees, tonnage, facility capacity, and other factors. While we reviewed the overall reasonableness and logical consistency of the information provided to us, we did not independently verify it ❑ Our findings are based on existing conditions in the waste transfer and disposal market. Changes in future market conditions and costs may affect our findings and the feasibility of a transfer station/MRF. We have no responsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. 11/6/97 7 SECTION 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS-TRANSFER 1. Continuing to direct haul to the County landfill is less costly than using a transfer station, assuming a reduction in the County tipping fee from $33.00 to $28.00 per ton. Exhibit 3 on the following page shows the cost of each of the system components for the five alternatives. Based on direction from City staff, we assumed that County landfill rates are lowered to $28.00 per ton in Alternative 1b. Based on this assumption, the average annual cost under the City's current direct haul system is approximately $12,118,000, or an average of $82.72 per ton. This is the lowest cost of all five alternatives, including Alternative 2a - City Transfer Station. A comparison of Alternatives lb and 2a in Exhibit 3 shows that by developing a centrally located transfer station, the City could achieve a significant reduction in its hauling costs because its route trucks would avoid the cost of traveling to the County landfills. The City's disposal Bea Olinda Landfill for $18.27 per ton instead of the because the City could use County landfills at $28.00 per ton. However, the hauling and disposal cost savings would be more than offset by the additional cost of transferring the waste from the route trucks and using long haul trailers to transport it to Orange County. As a result, the City's current direct haul system costs (at $28.00 per ton for disposal) are less than the transfer station system costs in Alternative 2a. EXHIBIT 3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM COSTS spstem, Annual Cost of 5 tem Components tin sow's)` Cost Per Altern ative Hauling Transfer Processing Transportation $ispos 6 $Total $ 86.54 n la. Direct Haul(current $ 8,473 n/a n/a system at$33/ton) n/a $ 3,645 $ 12,118 $ 82.72 lb. Direct Haul(current $ 8,473 n/a n/a system at$28/ton) 2a. City Transfer Station $ 7,463 $ 1,365 n/a $ 826 $ 2,555 $ 12,209 $ 83.34 2b. City Transfer Station/ $ 7,463 $ 1,009 $ 1,505 $ 929 $ 2,446 $ 13,352 $ 91.14 MRF 3. City Regional Transfer $ 7,463 $ 859 $ 977 $ 929 $ 2,446 $ 12,674 $ 86.51 Station/MRF 4a. West Valley Facility in $ 8,521 $ 3,697 n/a n/a $ 508 $ 12,726 $ 86.87 Fontana 4b. Agua Mansa Facility in $ 8,569 $ 3,391 n/a n/a $ 508 $ 12,468 $ 85.11 Riverside HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC 11/6/97 8 2. Although building a City transfer rect haulin to the County landfill (at $28 00 pert n), slightly more costly than g a transfer station would afford the City with more flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. The incremental annual cost of developing a transfer station and using the Brea Olinda Landfill (Alternative 2a) is approximately $91,000, or 1% greater than the current direct hauling system cost. Having its own transfer station would afford the City with an added measure of flexibility and control over its disposal options. For example, it would have the flexibility to quickly take advantage of limited time offers of inexpensive landfill capacity, or it may be able to negotiate a lower price at distant landfills. If the City were required to transfer its waste to more distant landfills at some future date, controlling its own transfer facility would enable the City to avoid any host fees charged at transfer stations in other jurisdictions. Moreover, the City would be less likely to be "crowded out" of other transfer stations with daily capacity constraints. 3. Depending on the County's future landfill pricing decisions, there is a risk that a City transfer station may be unnecessary and more costly than the current direct hauling system. If the County lowers the tip fee in the future below the assumed $28.00 per ton for competitive reasons, then transferring to more distant landfills may be relatively more expensive. If the City expended the capital to develop a transfer station, and the County subsequently reduced its tipping fees (e.g., by reducing the amount of landfill revenues transferred to the County's general fund), it would not be cost effective to use the transfer station to access the County landfills. For example, if the City developed a transfer station, and transferred its waste to the County landfills at to$28.00 $87 per ton for disposal,would inur an additional $746,000 i operating annual costs compared increase to $87.81, and it direct hauling. 4. Non-City (privately owned) transfer facilities are available to the City at only moderately higher cost than if the City builds its own transfer station. Exhibit 3 shows that using either the West Valley facility in Fontana (Alternative 4a) or the Agua Mansa facility in Riverside (Alternative 4b) would cause the City's current system costs (at $28.00 per ton) to increase approximately 5% or 3%, respectively. Because continuing with the current direct hauling system is the least expensive, the City is able to direct haul for the time being and possibly use one of these alternatives in the future, if market opportunities appear, without risking the City's capital. However, there is no assurance that this transfer capacity will be available to the City in the future. 1116197 9 FINDINGS - MRF 5. Adding processing capability to a transfer station will increase the City's current system costs (at$28.00 per ton for disposal) by$1.2 million annually, or approximately 10%. However, changes in the market prices of recyclable material could render this alternative more or less attractive depending upon the direction of the price changes. Exhibit 3 shows that developing a facility with both transfer and material processing capability (Alternative 2b) will increase the City's current system costs to $13,352,000, which is approximately $1.2 million, or 10% greater than the current direct haul system cost (at $28.00 per ton for disposal). This higher cost is primarily due to the additional labor (sorters, equipment operators), equipment (conveyor lines, balers, etc.), and floor space required to process recyclable material. Additionally, the cost estimate for Alternative 2a assumes that operating costs are offset by the revenues from the sale of recyclable materials based on current market prices. If the market prices for recyclable materials were significantly, his alternative may become more cost effective. Conversely, market prices were decline, this alternative would become less cost effective. 6. Mixed waste processing of commercial loads at a City MRF will increase the City's diversion rate by approximately 3%. City staff estimates that the City's diversion rate for 1997 will be approximately 25%. Adding processing capability to a transfer station will enable the City to perform mixed waste processing of recyclable-rich commercial loads. The City could organize its routes into "wet" (i.e., routes with restaurants, bars, etc.) and "dry" (i.e., recyclable rich) routes. Loads from wet routes would simply be transferred to the landfill and dry loads would be processed. Assuming that 60% of the commercial tonnage collected by the City is processed, and assuming that 25% of processed loads are recovered, the City would divert 7,293 additional tons, equating to approximately 3% of the total amount of current waste generated in the City. 7. Increasing its diversion to advance toward the AB 939 goals without a City MRF to perform mixed waste processing will require additional generator participation in source separated recycling programs, or use of mixed waste processing capability at a third party MRF. The City is currently providing curbside recycling, greenwaste collection, and, to a lesser extent, source-separated commercial recycling. To meet the AB 939 diversion goals (or to otherwise increase its overall diversion rate) without developing a MRF will require the City to: Q Implement new recycling programs (e.g., C&D recycling); and/or, HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC 11/6197 10 ❑ Elicit additional participation in its existing recycling programs; and/or, ❑ Process its commercial mixed waste at a third party MRF. 8. Building a larger regional MRF to accommodate nearby jurisdictions would cost the City less per ton than building a MRF to meet only its own needs due to greater economies of scale. However, it would require the City to undertake a significantly greater degree of financial risk. Exhibit 3 shows that the City's annual costs would increase to approximately $13,352,000 if the City were to develop a MRF only large enough to meet its own needs (Alternative 2b). However, if the City were to develop a MRF to accommodate nearby jurisdictions (Alternative 3), the portion of the annual costs allocated to the City's ratepayers would be $12,674,000, or approximately 5% less than Alternative 2b. The initial capital investment for a regional MRF ($12.0 million) is higher than for a City MRF ($10.9 million). However, since the fixed development costs are spread over a larger number of tons, the average cost per ton is reduced for the larger facility. The estimated amount of solid waste and recyclable material from nearby jurisdictions received by the regional facility was calculated in Schedule 2 of Aurora's technical memorandum in Appendix 1 and is summarized in Exhibit 4 on the next page. Exhibit 4 shows that approximately 20% of the incoming solid waste for transfer and approximately 44% of the recyclable material received by the regional MRF is expected to come from nearby jurisdictions. EXHIBIT 4 ESTIMATED TONNAGE FROM NEARBY JURISDICTIONS Solid Waste Recyclable Materials 'jurisdiction Tons Percent Tons Percent Highland 17,600 10% 3,924 5% Redlands 8,756 5% 28,121 39% Grand Terrace 1,640 1% 0% Colton 4,040 2% - 0% ° 0% Rialto - 0% Loma Linda 41370 2% - 0% 0°° _ °° Yucaipa Total Tons from Nearby 36,406 20% 321045 44% jurisdictions Tons from City of 144,817 % 40,241 °° San Bernardino Total Tons Accepted by 181,223 100% 72,286 100% City MRF HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC 1 ftV 1116197 11 Although a regional facility is less costly on a per ton basis if utilized at full capacity, it entails a greater degree of risk because it is not certain that all, or any, of these jurisdictions will direct their tonnage to the City's facility. If the City were to construct a larger regional facility, and was an not underutil underutilized attract and an tonnage even from nearby jurisdictions, it may find itself greater tipping fee per ton than if it had constructed the smaller size facility. Further, the City would be required to devote more of its administrative resources to entice nearby jurisdictions to send their tonnage to the City's facility, and since San Bernardino is the largest jurisdiction, combining with several smaller communities produces a limited economic benefit to City of San Bernardino, assuming that all facility users pay the same tipping fee. i RECOMMENDATIONS 1. If negotiations for significantly lower tipping fees with the County are successful, do not develop a transfer station or MRF. Based on our findings, we recommend th concluded. 1If the City is successful in negotiations with San Bernardino County are negotiating a tip fee of approximately $28.00 or less with the County, we recommend that the City continue direct hauling to the County landfills rather ernaan develop a transfer station. This would be the least risky and lowest cos of the available transfer capability of the Agua Mansa and West Valley facilities, there is little reason to develop a transfer station at an increased cost only to gain a measure of flexibility. Further, if a transfer station is not developed, then the feasibility of a MRF is greatly reduced because a small volume mixed waste processing facility is not cost effective. 2. If negotiations with the County are unsuccessful, develop a transfer station on sufficient acreage to add processing capability in the future. If negotiations with the County for a long-term disposal agreement at reduced tipping fees are unsuccessful, we recommend that the City develop a transfer station, initially without processing capability. We recommend that the City develop the transfer station with sufficient additional land and design characteristics to add processing capacity at a later it be warranted y future provide market onditions.e flexibility to expand the facility should A City transfer station would require approximately five acres, and a City-only MRF would require seven acres. The cost of the additional land, at $300,000, would add approximately $0.15 per ton to the facility tipping fee over the life of the facility. HILTON FARNKOPF&HOBSON,LLC 11/6/97 12 3. If negotiations with the County are successful and the City does not develop a transfer station or MRF, the City should consider amending its SRRE to exclude mixed waste processing and rely on enhancing and/or expanding source separated recycling programs, or utilize mixed waste processing at a third party MRF. To increase diversion and meet AB 939 goals, the City should initially rely on expanded source separated diversion programs (e.g., C&D recycling), or use processing capacity at existing facilities. If mixed waste processing was included as an element in the City's SRRE and the City feels it is already committed to develop a MRF in order to demonstrate a "good faith effort", the City should consider amending its SRRE to exclude a MRF. Additionally, the City may be able to satisfy its SRRE requirements by having commercial mixed waste processed at existing MRFs. 11/6/97 13 APPENDIX 1 Facility Size & Cost Estimates (Aurora Report) APPENDIX 1 City of San Bernardino MRF/Transfer Station Feasibility Study FACTORS DETERMINING THE FACILITY SIZE, CAPACITY, AND OPERATING COST Aurora Associates served as the engineering subcontractor to Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson for its MRF feasibility study for the City of San Bernardino. The objectives of our involvement were as follows: 1. Determine the optimal facility size, processing capacity, and configuration for each of the three project scenarios developed with the city (Scenarios 2A, 2B, and 3). 2. Estimate the capital and operating costs for each of the facility configurations defined in the scenarios. To determine the optimal facility size and associated capital and operating cost for each of these scenarios we considered several factors, including: 1. The characteristics of the city waste stream. 2. The opportunities to increase the facility throughput by adding additional tonnage from adjacent cities. 3. The future waste transfer needs of the city. This technical memo describes these factors and the method by which the corresponding costs per ton for transfer and processing were calculated for each scenario. 1. Waste Stream Characteristics The amount of solid waste and source separated materials currently collected in the city was used as the starting point for the facility planning process. The current annual quantities collected in the city are provided in Schedule 1. Option 2A was considered to be the "transfer only" scenario and was based on the following assumptions: • All of the solid waste currently collected in the city by city crews, licensed private haulers,and all self haulers would be brought to the city's facility for transfer to a disposal site. • The curbside recyclable materials collected by the city crews would continue to be unloaded at the Taormina transfer yard for eventual processing at the CVT facility in Anaheim. • The private haulers would continue to use processing facilities outside of the city. 1 - 1 The facility configuration for Option 2B included both transfer and processing capacity. The specific material recovery objectives for each portion of the in-coming waste stream that would be processed are included in Schedule 3. The facility plan for Option 2B was based on the following assumptions: • Curbside recyclable materials collected by city crews would be processed at the city facility. The remainder of the residential waste stream would be hauled to the city facility for transfer to a disposal site. • The City of San Bernardino would organize its commercial waste collection fleet into wet and dry collection routes. Approximately 60% of the commercial waste would be collected as "dry" loads and would be processed at the facility to recover recyclable materials such as paper, Plastic, metals, and wood. The remainder of the city-collected commercial waste ("wet" loads) would be delivered to the city facility for transfer to a disposal site. • All waste collected by the private haulers and self haulers operating in the city would be brought to the city facility for transfer to a disposal site. Source separated recyclable materials collected by the private haulers would be brought to the facility for processing. Option 3 was based on the assumption that the city would pursue opportunities to develop a regional facility to serve the waste transfer and material recovery needs of nearby cities. The potential sources of imported solid waste and recyclable materials for the facility are identified in Schedule 2. The facility configuration for Option 3 was based on the same assumptions as Option 2B with the addition of the following assumptions regarding the imported waste and recyclable materials: • Source-separated recyclable materials from existing programs in certain nearby cities would be brought to the facility for processing. • Solid waste currently collected for disposal in certain nearby cities would be brought to the facility for transfer to a disposal site. 2. Opportunities for a Regional Facility The amount of solid waste and recyclable materials brought to the facility from nearby cities (shown in Schedule 2) was estimated based on information obtained from the City of San Bernardino staff and on information available on existing and proposed competing facilities. The factors that were considered when evaluating the likelihood that an adjacent city would utilize the City of San Bernardino facility were the following: • Proximity of the adjacent city to the San Bernardino facility in relation to the proximity of the city to one of the existing county landfills. • Availability and cost competitiveness of processing capacity at another facility. 1 - 2 • The relationship between the waste haulers in any of the adjacent cities and the operators of any of the competing or proposed transfer and disposal facilities. 1 3. Future Needs of the City To ensure that the facility was developed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated population and economic growth in the City of San Bernardino an surrounding region,growth factors to the year 2010 for the region were obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments. Utilizing an average growth rate e waste disposal and of approximately 1.56% per year, projections of the future sp processing needs of the region were developed. This growth factor was applied to the expected present day transfer and processing levels developed for each facility ti option, thus providing for an approximate 157o growth factor for each option. The results are provided in Schedule 4. The facility could be initially developed as a "transfer-only" facility (Option 2A) and then at a future date, expanded to include processing capacity (Options 2B or 3). Provided the initial facility was designed with this expansion in mind, the expansion could be accomplished with the acquisition of approximately 2 acres of land to allow for the construction of a 25,000 - 35,000 sq.ft. processing area adjacent to the transfer building, 4. Facility Capacity and Related Unit Cost The capital and operating cost estimates for the proposed facility were developed by considering the land and building area, equipment, and personnel requirements for each scenario. The cost estimates for Option 2A were based on the requirements for the "transfer only" facility. The cost estimates for Option 2B included the Option 2A costs for transfer, as well as the costs for the additional facilities, equipment, and personnel required to add processing capacity to the facility. These additional features included a larger site and building,sorting lines and associated equipment, a baler, additional material handling equipment, and sorting dews and associated supervisory personnel. The cost estimates for Option 3 were an expansion of those developed for Option 2B. The Option 3 cost estimates included provisions for the additional facilities, equipment,and personnel needed to accommodate the imported waste and recyclable materials. Summaries of the capital and operating cost for each scenario are provided in Schedules 5-1 and 5-2. The costs in Schedule 5-1 were based on the facility being developed to accommodate the present day amounts of solid waste and recyclable materials. Schedule 5-2 includes the cost to develop and operate a facility sized to accommodate the daily tonnage that would be realized through growth during the ten year planning period. The unit cost information from Schedules 5-1 and 5-2 are summarized in the following table. 1 - 3 Transfer Processing OZ ating Unit 0 rat ng Unit O on UA Cost Cost li Option 2A Present Level 670 TPD $12.18/ton 0 TPD $0.00/ton Ultimate Level 775 TPD $10.95/ton OTPD $0.00/ton Option 2B Present Level 660 TPD $12.18/ton 155 TPD $57.30/ton Ultimate Level 760 TPD $10.95/ton 180 TPD $51.34/ton Option 3 Present Level 830 TPD $10.36/ton 280 TPD $43.35/ton Ultimate Level 960 TPD $9.33/ton 325 TPD $47.34/ton Schedules 6-1, 7-1, and 8-1 provide the estimates for Options 2A, 2B, and 3 at the present day waste transfer and processing levels. Schedules 6-2, 7-2, and 8-2 provide the cost estimates for each option at the ultimate processing levels. The assumptions and factors that were considered to develop the requirements for each option were as follows: • The tipping area of the facility was sized to provide storage capacity for at least the maximum daily quantity of waste to be received. This feature is intended to ensure that in the event that the compactor or the transfer trucks were not available, the facility could continue to receive in-coming loads for at least one operating day. • Loading of transfer trailers would be via a compactor located below the level of the tipping floor. • One Amfab compactor with an average operating capacity of 100 tons per hour would be provided. • Average size of a sorting crew for the material processing area would be 16 individuals per sort line. • The processing rate for commingled materials would be approximately 10 tons per hour per sorting crew. The processing rate for mixed waste would be 35 tons per hour per sorting crew. • Sorting crews would work on 1 to 3 shift per day schedules, depending on the operating level of the facility. • The facility would operate 260 days per year. 1 - 4 � • The average recovery rates for various waste streams to be processed at the facility would be as follows: City of San Bernardino commingledrecyclables 60% Commingled and source separated recyclables 75% from private haulers and other cities "Dry" loads of commercial waste collected by 25% City of San Bernardino crews 1 - 5 Schedule 1 City of San Bernardino MRF/Transfer Station PROCESSING & TRANSFER LEVELS Annual Tons Disposal Processing Option 2A Transfer Direct Haul at MRF By Others Total City of San Bernardino Residential 39,500 10, 49,700 City Commercial 48,620 264 4 0 23,920 3, City Roll-offs 23,920 Total City Crews 112,040 10,464 122'504 Private Haulers 16,949 605 17,554 Self Haul 45,000 0 45,000 Total City 173,989 11,069 185,058 Adjacent Cities* 0 36,406 32,045 68,451 Total Project 173,989 36,406 43,114 253,509 Disposal Processing Option 2B Transfer Direct Haul at MRF By Others Total City of San Bernardino Residential 39,500 10,200 49,700 City Commercial 19,448 29,436 48,884 City Roll-offs 23,920 0 23,920 Total City Crews 82,868 39,636 122,504 Private Haulers 16,949 605 17,554 Self Haul 45,000 0 45,000 Total City 144,817 40,241 185,058 Adjacent Cities* 0 36,406 0 32,045 68,451 Total Project 144,817 36,406 40,241 32,045 253,509 Disposal Processing Option 3 Transfer I Direct Haul at MRF By Others Total City of San Bernardino Residential 39,500 10,200 49,700 City Commercial 19,448 29,436 48,884 City Roll-offs 23,920 0 23,920 Total City Crews 82,868 39,636 122,504 Private Haulers 16,949 605 17,554 Self Haul 45,000 0 45,000 Total City 144,817 40,241 185,058 Adjacent Cities* 36,406 32,045 68,451 Total Project 181,223 72,286 253,509 see Schedule 2 1 - 6 � \ $ ° Ce C-4 ƒ C'4 / - ¥ ® 2 � / / \ 2 « \ \ n a C c c o = o a 14 | M / r a ® .2 / $ Q u \ / 0 G 2 m 6 G ® « _ M w D 2 { c c c 6 c @ >-' ® ( / u / e / / k ƒ ® a m _ zQ c \ 00 LQ \ / \ � \ u A / / \ ) , \ I 2 c o ; 4 H m § 2 \ \ / \ § T - 7 p �+ C) h O w :: S `�" N d` N N pp m m >m H3 N .-. F- ob o U) .fl O �O p ID w r" N N N cz cn p( w c0 �p .. �nU chi td G N ON N O �O y > O ;; > OR > d d R § N M s. v (j) T o o w OO �c-� �+ W' LO ea w � Q a" 8 C� ft I t" O y r4i O O N d; `�i N O �7 N O p N N M 0 M 0 5 o z O y 3 W � N O a ao oapo O` •• N R V b p a\ a0 b m �p LfS M N GN0 �i o O � a to -a o M o 0 � 144 W ~ > w 0 0 0 � —C, c�' Q z U U U 1 - s i I Schedule 4 City of San Bernardino MRF/Transfer Station CAPACITY OPTIONS Processing Transfer Source Mired Option Type of Facility Prima Users Separated Waste Total 2A City Transfer City of San Bernardino 112,040 0 0 0 Facility 16,949 0 0 0 Private haulers in SB SB self haul 45,000 0 0 0 Annual Total(tons per ear)* 1-7-319-8-9 0 0 0 Daily Total(tons per day): Total Present Capacity 669 0 0 0 10-year growth factor-15.670 104 0 0 0 Required Ultimate Capacity 775 0 0 0 2B City MRF and City of San Bernardino 108,893 10,464 29,172 39,636 Transfer Facility 17,100 605 0 605 Private haulers in SB SB self haul 45,000 0 0 0 Annual Total(tons er ear)— 170,993 11,069 29,172 40,241 Daily Total(tons per day) Total Present Capacity 658 43 112 155 10-year growth factor-15.670 103 7 18 24 Required Ultimate Capacity 760 49 130 179 3. Regional MRF and City of San Bernardino 108,893 10,464 29,172 ]32,045 Transfer Facility Private haulers in SB 17,100 605 0 SB self haul 45,000 0 0 Adjacent cities 44,417 32,045 0 Annual Total(tons er ear)" 215 410 43,114 29,172 Daily Total(tons per day) Total Present Capacity 829 166 112 278 10-year growth factor-15.670 129 26 18 43 Required Ultimate Capacity 958 192 130 321 from Schedule I **from Schedule 3,column 6 Oct 30,1997 1 - 9 Schedule 5-1 Current Tonnage San Bernardino MRF/Transfer Station ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING COSTS October 29,1997 Option 2A Option 2B Option 3 Transfer Capacity 670 tons/day 660 tons/day 830 tons/day Processing Capacity 0 tons/day 155 tons/day 280 tons/day Total Capacity 670 tons/day 815 tons/day 1,110 tons/day Site Size 5 acres 7 acres 7 acres Building Size 30,000 sq.ft. 55,000 sq.ft. 65,000 sq.ft. Financing Terms: Interest Rate 77o 7 7o 7%0 Term 20 years 20 years 20 years Investment: Land,Site&Bldgs. $3,742,500 $6,257,650 $6,640,150 Equipment $1,090,000 $2,118,000 $2,433,000 Design&Financing $1,422,718 $2,496,330 $2,936,033 Total Investment $6,255,218 $10,871,980 $12,009,183 Transfer Cost Labor $357,344 $357,344 $357,344 Operating Expenses $716,063 $716,063 $787,669 Debt Service $624,719 $624,719 $624,719 Overhead&Profit $424,531 $424,531 $466,984 Total Annual Cost $2,122,657 $2,122,657 $2,236,716 Processing Cost Labor $0 $757,848 $1,413,048 Operating Expenses $0 $653,668 $603,847 Debt Service $0 $435,790 $527,276 Overhead&Profit $0 $461,826 $611,491 Total Annual Cost $0 $2,309,132 $3,155,662 Transfer Unit Cost $12.19 $12.19 $10.36 Processing Unit Cost $0.00 $57.30 $43.35 Total Unit Cost $12.19 $20.91 $18.68 1 - 10 Schedule 6-1 670 TPD San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2A October 29,1997 Number Units Unit Price Total Cost Annual Land Acquisition 5.0 acres $150,000 $750,000 $70,795 Site Development Site preparation&grading 218,000 sq.ft. $0.75 $163,500 Concrete paving 45,000 sq.ft. $4.00 $180,000 Water&fire service 500 ln.ft. $14.00 $7,000 Sewer&clarifier 500 ln.ft. $41.00 $20,500 Electrical service 500 ln.ft. $20.00 $10,000 1 each $50,000 $50,000 Electrical switchgear Driveways-paving 16,500 sq.ft. $1.50 $24,750 Landscaping&irrigation 10,000 sq.ft. $2.60 $26,000 1,750 ln.ft. $18.00 $31,500 Fencing 10 each $2,500 $25,000 Lighting Facility signs 2 each $500 $1,000 Parking lot paving 15,000 sq.ft. $1.75 $26,250 $565,500 $53,379 Subtotal Site Work Buildings&Facilities 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Scale House Transfer station building 30,000 sq.ft. $55.00 $1,650,000 Mechanical 30,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $90,000 Electrical&lighting 30,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $90,000 Concrete floor&foundation 30,000 sq.ft. $5.00 $150,000 Tipping floor sealant 15,000 sq.ft. $15.00 $225,000 Truck ramp 15,000 sq.ft. $8.00 $120,000 Office 800 sq.ft. $15 $12,000 Fueling station&tank 1 sq.ft. $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal Buildings&Facilities $2,427,000 $229,092 Annual Equipment Quantity Hours Unit Price Total Cost Annual Wheel loaders 1 1,820 $155,000 $155,000 Sweeper 1 1,040 $30,000 $30,000 Forklift 0 $35'000 $0 Bobcat loader 0 $18,000 $0 Amfab Compactor 1 $475,000 $475,000 Baler 0 $420,000 $0 Sorting lines 0 $50,000 $0 Feed conveyors 0 $80'000 $o Transfer conveyors 0 $40,000 $0 Baler feed conveyor 0 $60,000 $0 Bag openers 0 $50,000 $0 Magnets 0 $20,000 $0 Scales 2 $40,000 $80,000 Installation 1 $150,000 $150,000 Misc.equipment 1 $200,000 $200' Subtotal Equipment $1,090,000 $102,888 1 - 11 I Schedule 6-1 (continued) San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2A Oct 29,1997 Summary $750,000 Land Site,buildings,equipment $4'082'500 Traffic&other mitigation fees $40,000 Permitting&development $108' $408,250 Contingency $297,868 Financing $250,000 Working capital $326,600 $134,294 Engineering&Design $6,255,218 $624,719 Total Hourly Rate With Annual Annual Labor tl Rate Benefits Hours Expense Facility manager 1 $38.00 $47.50 2,080 $98,800 Foreman 1 $19.25 $26.95 2,080 $56,056 Equipment operators 0 $13.00 $18.20 2,080 $0 Scale operator 1 $13.50 $18.90 2,080 $39,312 Loader operators 1 $13.00 $18.20 2,860 $52,052 Sorting line crew 0 $8.00 $11.20 2,080 $0 Laborers 2 $6.50 $9.10 2,080 $37,856 Mechanics 1 $14.00 $19.60 2,080 $40,768 Office staff 1 $12.50 $15.63 2,080 $32,500 Subtotal 8 $357,344 Total Operating Expense $100,000 Utilities $61,100 Mobile equipment O&M Other equipment maintenance $80'000 $75,000 Insurance&fees Facility maintenance $67' $750 0 Uniforms S50,000 Professional services Employee Training $25,$25,000' Regulatory compliance $50'000 ,000 Property taxes $112727,213 Contingency $716,063 Subtotal Total Annual Operating Cost $1,073,407 Annual Debt Service Cost $624,719 Total Annual Cost $1,698,125 Overhead&Profit 2570 $424,531 Total Annual Facility Cost $2,122,657 Unit Cost Days/year= 260 Tons=670 $12.19 1 - 12 i Schedule 7-1 815 TPD San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2B October 29,1997 Number Units Unit Price Total Cost Annual Land Acquisition 7 acres $150,000 $1,050,000 $99,113 Site Development Site preparation&grading 305,000 sq.ft. $0.75 $228,750 , Concrete paving 85,000 sq.ft. $4.00 $340,000 Water&fire system 500 ln.ft. $14.00 $7,000 Sewer&clarifier 500 ln.ft. $41.00 $20,500 Electrical service 500 In.ft. $20.00 $10,000 Electrical switchgear 1 each $50,000 $50,000 25,000 sq.ft. $1.50 $37,500 Driveways-paving Landscaping&irrigation 15,000 sq.ft. $2.60 $39,000 2,300 ln.ft. $18.00 $41,400 Fencing Lighting 15 each $2,500 $37,500 Facility signs 2 each $500 $1,000 Parking lot paving 25,000 sq.ft. $1.75 $43,750 Subtotal Site Work $856,400 $80,838 Buildings&Facilities 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Scale House Transfer/MRF building 55,000 sq.ft. $55.00 $3,025,000 Mechanical 55,000 sq.ft. $3.75 $206,250 Electrical&lighting 55,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $165,000 Concrete floor&foundation 55,000 sq.ft. $5.00 $275,000 Tipping floor sealant 25,000 sq.ft. $15.00 $375,000 Truck ramp 25,000 sq.ft. $8.00 $200,000 Office 1 each $15,000 $15,000 Fueling station&tank 1 sq.ft. $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal Buildings&Facilities $4,351,250 $410,727 Annual Equipment Quantity Hours Unit Price Total Cost Annual Wheel loaders 2 1,560 $155,000 $310,000 Sweeper 1 1,040 $30,000 $30,000 Forklift 1 1,560 $35,000 $35,000 Bobcat loader 1 1,560 $18,000 $18,000 Amfab Compactor 1 - $475,000 $475,000 Baler 1 $420,000 $420,000 Sorting lines 1 $50,000 $50,000 Feed conveyors 1 $80,000 $80,000 Transfer conveyors 1 $40'000 $40'000 Baler feed conveyor 1 $60,000 $60'000 Bag openers 1 $50'000 $50,000 Magnets 1 $20,000 $20,000 Scales 2 - $40,000 $80,000 Installation 1 - $200,000 $200,000 Misc.equipment 1 - $250,000 $250,000 Subtotal Equipment $2,118,000 $199,924 1 - 13 Schedule 7-1 (continued) San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2B Oct 29,1997 Summary $1,050,000 Land $7,325,650 Site,buildings,equipment $85,000 Traffic&other mitigation fees $150,000 Permitting&development $732,565 Contingency $517,713 Financing $425,000 Working capital $586,052 $235,636 Engineering&Design $10,871,980 $1,060,509 Total Hourly Rate With Annual Annual Labor # Rate Benefits Hours Expense Facility manager 1 $36.00 $45.00 2,080 $93,600 2 $19.25 $26.95 2,080 $112,112 Foreman Equipment operators 2 $10.50 $14.70 2,080 $61,152 Scale operator 1 $12.00 $16.80 2'080 $34,944 Loader Operators 2 $13.50 $18.90 2,080 $78,624 Sorting line crew 24 $8.00 $11.20 2,080 $559,104 Laborers 2 $6.50 $9.10 2,080 $37,856 Mechanics 2 $12.50 $17.50 2,080 $72,800 Office staff 2 $12.50 $15.63 2,080 $65,000 Subtotal 38 $1,115,192 Total O er iting Expense $200,000 Utilities $140,400 Mobile equipment O&M $202,000 Other equipment maintenance $125,000 Insurance&fees $175,000 Facility maintenance $2,275 Uniforms $95,000 Professional services $7,600 Employee Training $90,000 Regulatory compliance $125,000 Property taxes $207,455 Contingency $1,369,730 Subtotal Total Annual Operating Cost $2,484,922 Annual Debt Service Cost $1,060,509 Total Annual Cost $3,545,431 Overhead&Profit 25% $886'358 Total Annual Facility Cost $4,431,788 Unit Cost Days/year= 260 Tons= 815 $20.91 1 - 14 Schedule 8-1 1,110 TPD San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 3 October 29,1997 Number Units Unit Price Total Cost Annual Land Acquisition 7 acres $150,000 $1,050,000 $99,113 Site Development Site preparation&grading 305,000 sq.ft. $0.75 $228,750 85,000 sq.ft. $4.00 $340,000 Concrete paving Water&fire system 500 ln.ft. $14.00 $7,000 Sewer&clarifier 500 ln.ft. $41.00 $20,500 Electrical service 500 ln.ft. $20.00 $10,000 Electrical switchgear 1 each $50,000 $50,000 Driveways-paving 25,000 sq.ft. $1.50 $37,500 Landscaping&irrigation 15,000 sq.ft. $2.60 $39,000 Fencing 2,300 ln.ft. $18.00 $41,400 Lighting 15 each $2,500 $37,500 Facility signs 2 each $500 $1,000 Parking lot paving 30,000 sq.ft. $1.75 $52,500 Subtotal Site Work $865,150 $81,664 Buildings&Facilities 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Scale House Transfer/MRF building 60,000 sq.ft. $55.00 $3,300,000 Mechanical 60,000 sq.ft. $3.75 $225,000 Electrical&lighting 60,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $180,000 Concrete floor&foundation 60,000 sq.ft. $5.00 $300,000 Tipping floor sealant 25,000 sq.ft. $15.00 $375,000 Truck ramp 30,000 sq.ft. $8.00 $240,000 Office 1 each $15,000 $15,000 Fueling station&tank 1 sq.ft. $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal Buildings&Facilities $4,725,000 $446,007 Annual Equipment Quantity Hours Unit Price Total Cost Annual Wheel loaders 2 1,560 $155,000 $310,000 Sweeper 1 1,040 $30,000 $30,000 Forklift 1 1,560 $35,000 $35,000 Bobcat loader 1 1,560 $18,000 $18,000 Amfab Compactor 1 - $475,000 $475,000 Baler 1 $420,000 $420,000 Sorting lines 2 $50,000 $100,000 Feed conveyors 2 $80,000 $160,000 Transfer conveyors 2 $40,000 $80,000 Baler feed conveyor 1 $60,000 $60'000 Bag openers 2 $50,000 $100,000 Magnets 2 $20,000 $40,000 Scales 2 - $40,000 $80,000 Installation 1 - $250,000 $250,000 Misc.equipment 1 - $275,000 $275,000 Subtotal Equipment $2,433,000 $229,658 1 - 15 Schedule 8-1 (continued) San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 3 Oct 29,1997 Summary $1,050,000 Land $8,023,150 Site,buildings,equipment $85,000 Traffic&other mitigation fees $150,000 Permitting&development $802,315 Contingency $563,866 Financing $525,000 Working capital $641,852 $261,283 Engineering&Design $11,841,183 $1,151,994 Total Hourly Rate With Annual Annual Labor # Rate Benefits Hours Expense Facility manager 1 $36.00 $45.00 2,080 $93,600 Foreman 2 $19.25 $26.95 2,080 $112,112 Equipment operators 4 $10.50 $14.70 2,080 $122,304 Scale operator 2 $12.00 $16.80 2,080 $69,888 Loader Operators 2 $13.50 $18.90 2,080 $78,624 Sorting line crew 48 $8.00 $11.20 2,080 $1,118,208 Laborers 2 $6.50 $9.10 2,080 $37,856 Mechanics 2 $12.50 $17.50 2,080 $72,800 Office staff 2 $12.50 $15.63 2,080 $65,000 65 $1,770,392 Subtotal Total Operating Expense $205,000 Utilities $140,400 Mobile equipment O&M $205,000 Other equipment maintenance $128,000 Insurance&fees $175,000 Facility maintenance $4,030 Uniforms $95,000 Professional services $13,000 Employee Training $90,000 Regulatory compliance $125,000 Property taxes $211,086 Contingency $1,391,516 Subtotal $3,161,908 Total Annual Operating Cost $1,151,994 Annual Debt Service Cost $4,313,902 Total Annual Cost 25% $1,078,476 Overhead&Profit $5,392,378 Total Annual Facility Cost Unit Cost Days/year= 260 Tons=1,110 $18.68 1 - 16 Schedule 5-2 Future Tonnage San Bernardino MRF/Transfer Station ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING COSTS October 29,1997 Option 2A Option 2B Option 3 Transfer Capacity 775 tons/day 760 tons/day 960 tons/day Processing Capacity 0 tons/day 180 tons/day 325 tons/day Total Capacity 775 tons/day 940 tons/day 1,285 tons/day Site Size 5 acres 7 acres 7 acres Building Size 30,000 sq.ft. 55,000 sq.ft. 65,000 sq.ft. Financing Terms: Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% Term 20 years 20 years 20 years Investment: Land,Site&Bldgs. $3,742,500 $6,237,650 $6,640,150 Equipment $1,090,000 $2,118,000 $2,433,000 Design&Financing $1,422,718 $2,517,800 $2,936,033 Total $6,255,218 $10,873,450 $12,009,183 Transfer Cost Labor $357,344 $357,344 $357,344 Operating Expenses $782,375 $782,375 $860,613 Debt Service $624,719 $624,719 $624,719 Overhead&Profit $441,109 $441,109 $485,220 Total Annual Cost $2,205,547 $2,205,547 $2,327,896 Processing Cost Labor $0 $944,216 $1,804,712 Operating Expenses $0 $541,899 $880,710 Debt Service $0 $435,929 $534,709 Overhead&Profit $0 $480,511 $780,481 Total Annual Cost $0 $2,402,554 $4,000,612 Transfer Unit Cost $10.95 $10.95 $9.33 Processing Unit Cost $0.00 $51.34 $47.34 Total Unit Cost $10.95 $18.85 $18.94 1 - 17 Schedule 6-2 775 TPD San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2A October 29,1997 Number Units Unit Price Total Cost Annual Land Acquisition 5.0 acres $150,000 $750,000 $70,795 Site Development Site preparation&grading 218,000 sq.ft. $0.75 $163,500 Concrete paving 45,000 sq.ft. $4.00 $180,000 Water&fire service 500 ln.ft. $14.00 $7,000 Sewer&clarifier 500 ln.ft. $41.00 $20,500 500 ln.ft. $20.00 $10,000 Electrical service Electrical switchgear 1 each $50,000 $50,000 Driveways-paving 16,500 sq.ft. $1.50 $24,750 Landscaping&irrigation 10,000 sq.ft. $2.60 $26,000 1,750 ln.ft. $18.00 $31,500 Fencing 10 each $2,500 $25,000 Facility signs 2 each $500 $1,000 Parking lot paving 15,000 sq.ft. $1.75 $26,250 $565,500 $53,379 Subtotal Site Work Buildings&Facilities Scale House 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Transfer station building 30,000 sq.ft. $55.00 $1,650,000 30,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $90,000 Mechanical Electrical&lighting 30,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $90,000 Concrete floor&foundation 30,000 sq.ft. $5.00 $150,000 Tipping floor sealant 15,000 sq.ft. $15.00 $225, Truck ramp 15,000 sq.ft. $8.00 $120,000 Office 800 sq.ft. $15 $12,000 Fueling station&tank 1 sq.ft. $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal Buildings&Facilities $2,427,000 $229,092 Annual Equipment Quantity Hours Unit Price Total Cost Annual Wheel loaders 1 1,820 $155,000 $155,000 Sweeper 1 1,040 $30,000 $30,000 Forklift 0 $35'000 $0 Bobcat loader 0 $18,000 $0 Amfab Compactor 1 $475'000 $475'000 Baler 0 $420,000 $0 Sorting lines 0 $50,000 $0 Feed conveyors 0 $80'000 $0 Transfer conveyors 0 $40'000 $0 Baler feed conveyor 0 $60,000 $0 Bag openers 0 $50,000 $0 Magnets 0 $20,000 $0 Scales 2 $40'000 $80,000 Installation 1 $150,000 $150,000 Misc.equipment 1 $200,000 $200,000 Subtotal Equipment $1,090,000 $102,888 1 - 18 Schedule 6-2 (continued) San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2A Oct 29,19W Summary $750,000 Land $4,082,500 Site,buildings,equipment $40,000 Traffic&other mitigation fees $100,000 Permitting&development $408,250 Contingency $297,868 Financing $250,000 Working capital $326,600 $134,294 Engineering&Design $6,255,218 $624,719 Total Hourly Rate With Annual Annual Labor # Rate Benefits Hours Expense Facility manager 1 $38.00 $47.50 2,080 $98,800 Foreman 1 $19.25 $26.95 2,080 $56,056 Equipment operators 0 $13.00 $18.20 2,080 $0 Scale operator 1 $13.50 $18.90 2,080 $39,312 Loader operators 1 $13.00 $18.20 2,860 $52,052 Sorting line crew 0 $8.00 $11.20 2,080 $0 Laborers 2 $6.50 $9.10 2,080 $37,856 Mechanics 1 $14.00 $19.60 2,080 $40,768 Office staff 1 $12.50 $15.63 2,080 $32,500 Subtotal 8 $357,344 Total Operating Expense $110,000 Utilities $61,100 Mobile equipment O&M Other equipment maintenance $95,000 Insurance&fees $80,$80,000, $70,000 Facility maintenance $800 Uniforms $60,000 Professional services Employee Training $25,$25,000, $60,000 Regulatory compliance $80,000 Property taxes $140,475 Contingency $782,375 Subtotal Total Annual Operating Cost $1,139,719 Annual Debt Service Cost $624,719 Total Annual Cost $1,764,438 Overhead&Profit 25% $441,109 Total Annual Facility Cost $2,205,547 Unit Cost Days/year=260 Tons=775 $10.95 1 - 19 Schedule 7-2 940 TPD San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2B October 29,19W Number Units Unit Price Total Cost Annual Land Acquisition 7 acres $150,000 $1,050,000 $99,113 Site Development Site preparation&grading 305,000 sq.ft. $0.75 $228,750 Concrete paving 85,000 sq.ft. $4.00 $340,000 500 ln.ft. $14.00 $7. Water&fire system $7,000 Sewer&clarier 500 ln.ft. $41.00 $20,500 clarifier $10,000 Electrical service 500 ln.ft. $20.00 Electrical switchgear 1 each $50,000 $50,000 Driveways-paving 25,000 sq.ft. $1.50 $37,500 Landscaping&irrigation 15,000 sq.ft. $2.60 $39,000 2,300 In.ft. $18.00 $41,400 Fencing Lighting 15 each $2,500 $37,500 Facility signs 2 each $500 $1,000 Parking lot paving 25,000 sq.ft. $1.75 $43,750 Subtotal Site Work $856,400 $80,838 Buildings&Facilities 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Scale House Transfer/MRF building 55,000 sq.ft. $55.00 $3,025,000 Mechanical 55,000 sq.ft. $3.75 $206,250 Electrical&lighting 55,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $165,000 Concrete floor&foundation 55,000 sq.ft. $5.00 $275,000 Tipping floor sealant 25,000 sq.ft. $15.00 $375,000 Truck ramp 25,000 sq.ft. $8.00 $200,000 Office 1 each $15,000 $15,000 Fueling station&tank 1 sq.ft. $60,000 $60,000 Subtotal Buildings&Facilities $4,331,250 $408,839 Annual Equipment Quantity Hours Unit Price Total Cost Annual Wheel loaders 2 1,560 $155,000 $310,000 Sweeper 1 1,040 $30,000 $30,000 Forklift 1 1,560 $35,000 $35,000 Bobcat loader 1 1,560 $18,000 $18,000 Amfab Compactor 1 - $475,000 $475,000 Baler 1 $420'000 $420,000 Sorting lines 1 $50'000 $50'000 Feed conveyors 1 $80'000 $80'000 Transfer conveyors 1 $40,000 $40,000 Baler feed conveyor 1 $60,000 $60'000 Bag openers 1 $50'000 $50'000 Magnets 1 $20,000 $20,000 Scales 2 - $40'000 $80,000 Installation 1 - $200,000 $200,000 Misc.equipment 1 - $250,000 $250,000 Subtotal Equipment $2,118,000 $199,924 1 - 20 Schedule 7-2 (continued) San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 2B Oct 29,199% Summary $1,050,000 Land $7,305,650 Site,buildings,equipment $85,000 Traffic&other mitigation fees $150,000 Permitting&development $730,565 Contingency $517,783 Financing $450,000 Working capital $584,452 $237,663 Engineering&Design $10,873,450 $1,060,647 Total Hourly Rate With Annual Annual Labor # Rate Benefits Hours Expense Facility manager 1 $36.00 $45.00 2,080 $93,600 Foreman 2 $19.25 $26.95 2,080 $112,112 Equipment operators 2 $10.50 $14.70 2,080 $61,152 Scale operator 1 $12.00 $16.80 2,080 $34,944 Loader Operators 2 $13.50 $18.90 2,080 $78,624 Sorting line crew 32 $8.00 $11.20 2,080 $745,472 Laborers 2 $6.50 $9.10 2,080 $37,856 Mechanics 2 $12.50 $17.50 2,080 $72,800 Office staff 2 $12.50 $15.63 2,080 $65,000 Subtotal 46 $1,301,560 Total O er iting Expense $160,000 Utilities $140,400 Mobile equipment O&M $202,000 Other equipment maintenance $125,000 Insurance&fees $175,000 Facility maintenance $2,795 Uniforms $95,000 Professional services $9,200 Employee Training $90,000 Regulatory compliance $125,000 Property taxes $199,879 Contingency $1,324,274 Subtotal Total Annual Operating Cost $2,625,834 Annual Debt Service Cost $1,060,647 Total Annual Cost $3,686,481 Overhead&Profit 2517o $921,620 Total Annual Facility Cost $4,608,102 Unit Cost Days/year=260 Tons=940 $18.85 1 - 21 Schedule 8-2 1,285 TPD San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 3 October 29,1997 Number Units Unit Price Total Cost Annual Land Acquisition 7 acres $150,000 $1,050,000 $99,113 Site Development Site preparation&grading 305,000 sq.ft. $0.75 $228,750 Concrete paving 85,000 sq.ft. $4.00 $340,000 Water&fire system 500 ln.ft. $14.00 $7,000 Sewer&clarifier 500 ln.ft. $41.00 $20,500 Electrical service 500 ln.ft. $20.00 $10,000 Electrical switchgear 1 each $50,000 $50,000 Driveways-paving 25,000 sq.ft. $1.50 $37,500 Landscaping&irrigation 15,000 sq.ft. $2.60 $39,000 2,3 Fencing 00 ln.ft. $18.00 $41,400 15 each $2,500 $37,500 Lighting Facility signs 2 each $500 $1,000 Parking lot paving 30,000 sq.ft. $1.75 $52,500 Subtotal Site Work $865,150 $81,664 Buildings&Facilities Scale House 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Transfer/MRF building 60,000 sq.ft. $55.00 $3,300,000 Mechanical 60,000 sq.ft. $3.75 $225,000 Electrical&lighting 60,000 sq.ft. $3.00 $180,000 Concrete floor&foundation 60,000 sq.ft. $5.00 $300,000 Tipping floor sealant 25,000 sq.ft. $15.00 $375,000 Truck ramp 30,000 sq.ft. $8.00 $240,000 Office 1 each $15,000 $15,000 Fueling station&tank 1 sq.ft. $80,000 $80,000 Subtotal Buildings&Facilities $4,725,000 $446,007 Annual Equipment Quantity Hours Unit Price Total Cost Annual Wheel loaders 2 1,560 $155,000 $310,000 Sweeper 1 1,040 $30,000 $30,000 Forklift 1 1,560 $35,000 $35,000 Bobcat loader 1 1,820 $18,000 $18,000 Amfab Compactor 1 - $475'000 $475'000 Baler 1 $420,000 $420,000 Sorting lines 2 $50,000 $100,000 Feed conveyors 2 $80,000 $160,000 Transfer conveyors 2 $40,000 $80,000 Baler feed conveyor 1 $60'000 $60'000 Bag openers 2 $50,000 $100,000 Magnets 2 $20,000 $40,000 Scales 2 - $40,000 $80,000 Installation 1 $250,000 $250,000 Misc.equipment 1 - $275,000 $275,000 Subtotal Equipment $2,433,000 $229,658 1 - 22 Schedule 8-2 (continued) San Bernardino Transfer Station - Option 3 Oct 29,19W Summary $1,050,000 Land Site,buildings,equipment $8, ,150 $85 Traffic&other mitigation fees $50'� Permitting&development $150,000 $802,315 Contingency $567,616 Financing $600,000 Working capital $641,852 $268,716 Engineering&Design $11,919,933 $1,159,428 Total Hourly Rate With Annual Annual Labor # Rate Benefits Hours Expense Facility manager 1 $36.00 $45.00 2,080 $93,600 Foreman 2 $19.25 $26.95 2,080 $112,112 Equipment operators 4 $10.50 $14.70 2,080 $122,304 Scale operator 2 $12.00 $16.80 2,080 $69,888 2 $13.50 $18.90 2,080 $78,624 Loader Operators Sorting line crew 64 $8.00 $11.20 2,080 $1,490,944 Laborers 3 $6.50 $9.10 2,080 $56,784 Mechanics 2 $12.50 $17.50 2,080 $72,800 Office staff 2 $12.50 $15.63 2,080 $65,000 Subtotal 82 $2,162,056 Total Operating Expense $250,000 Utilities $144,300 Mobile equipment O&M Other equipment maintenance $260,000 $140,000 Insurance&fees $245,000 Facility maintenance $5,135 Uniforms $130,000 Professional services $25,000 Employee Training $110,000 Regulatory compliance $170,000 Property taxes $261,887 Contingency $1,741,322 Subtotal Total Annual Operating Cost $3,903,378 Annual Debt Service Cost $1,159,428 Total Annual Cost $5'062'806 Overhead&Profit 25% $1,265,701 Total Annual Facility Cost $6,328,507 Unit Cost Days/year=260 Tons= 1,285 $18.94 1 - 23 ti APPENDIX 2 Detailed S v stem Cost Estimates N y fn W O y � y, V► � Q � V O G n r" `O `o air) V H m 0 � � to A to F � V T�- LO 10 LO Iq v N M n o m O LrI m 00'. rn Cl) M 0 W n p lc N N N r t B C u -i G a wr. a m O Ol CD r G D` a, C, CU i f i R tNfi 16 � 00 00 V r" h G o O o O L u°) Lr) V . C4 C14 bq EA to G D V O V 3 o o 0 RLf) N N R 06 0 Q Q c , Il N N Z z a m P z z 00 O G N tv A CJ m G o v o w A V) _ a us 's. o °a. 10 o w oo r! Q Q oo r a Q z z z p R R w V y G �- °"° v N N N Cl) N N O v d 00 O� T ' U z z i a F A . 0 0. O o m i v 3 R t� tl N o 00 G w a v G N N 10 %0 10 N N G 7k Q yt�i er ef' a' u': 4 N v 3F Y R R 06 W, v a R E x C, v � x1 O y (OQ- 3 o v 6 ac o :"• 3yo0 Ct9 G R a O O R �. N O fYi Q 2 r 0b0 v > V y ;? R :? cn v t0 m �° o z C1 ° C 'Gtzr.�� E y x_ .., I m .. C w .. 4 a E a N � F d " , 0 a V 4° It 6 .a. a � o G o F• F" 10 7 w O i y'T r �'i 04 :: .:: O O O Q v "IW Llg C] S U U U Q ww_wW 5 � N N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g g S g $ $ S S S 8 0 $ 8 S 8 8 5 8 8 $ 8 O O O O O O O a, c7l to to . . . C Q M tMl) N N N 1m .My N C V' V� N O� 1 N vO Lq f+i Nj �p t+j N N N N GO N N N N r+ 00 N N N M 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M N M M M M M M M N M M M M N EA O O EH Ln C> 8 M fV fV fV T � O O M N •� e-i .r � N M M M N �p p p p p p p p p p p O Q O 8 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O S O O O O S S `-: ,O �O 'O D` Vl H' . . C '••' � 1f1 l� N 1� N L' eM-+ M+ N N d' c4 d' d' N C C' C C' - rj Kj cry N N N N O N N N N M M M N N Cl N N N N N N N N N M M M M N M M M M V1 W a °o o g o > o 0 o, a6 G a G ri Lri ool oc v ° m A to M M N a N C E N V3 � A a a O y W C) O W U � iw F O U C7 z F W a O � o a O Qi N O d d W � O H Y H H iy in iy Ir it W W N 4 N 1+ la L M L M Iw Y M Y L, N W Ir Y FFFF.... y0 O O O O y0 y0 „O r0 „O „O y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 y0 O O y0 O O O O „O r0 y0 y0 O y0 y0 .�a. Xi. O h H Y Y ia• ta• N fan 4ai W tai 4 4 i�gi. N M M M L Lai W Lai tai tai Yp, iai � Y Y M M Lar O O U CW x 0 0 0 0 0 00 O gggg0 S S S S g g 0 � � � � � 8" rn o U c 0 a 0 U 1 0 0 O O C �D O [� O N 00 N O S p ED O O O O O O Oo O O O O O O �'1 O �! O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O C, M d' O �D O O N fA N n W MM V� O� O M V' O N If1 V' 0 0 M c) N M N N N .•-� M .~-� W H C C W N N O Vim' N N F '. c6 tP 0 0 0 0 0 °o °u EA Fa IA cD C c M O c N p N cD O N � W Ic {p N N lo oo N � N fpA � O O ' N to w W C a a al tA C a o o 0 -0 0 o o oo, o 0 0 0 o u o u o N o C 16`O N M w M a' O o O O Ln � V' O, c !A �D - N n OM N n N O- M lD N O oc ON c � N M C P N N O, Ifi N lf) O cD O co M c r d' Cl o+ N .N. O d' F Iq C M lo lo to � p G •N A fn LL 00 00 G 0 O W O � OUf yj U � w q d b A N f/1 A d C w U un U O 0 a Q .104 o f a O e v o o e°o °' a; w cn O z vi C h O > d A C C Z ' N v •� C Dom., O 3 d �"' PQ to u o x y x W E u G y a cFn C7 wR W z G C u y c u° °" w O > C c) cc N m v° A c o d Q v v cn Z a a U o a s°n c ti cW v X C a c -° o O ° cn cn cn cn O Q O a x w Q cn F d d F (7 c, om a D, x Q x cn U c 0 d 0 U 0 0 °o• 0 0 0 0 0 °o, °o, o o °o• o o °o• °o, °o, °o• g 0 0 °o• o °o, o o °o• o °o• O 0 0 O O p° O° 6 0 6 0 0 O O O ° O ° O n 'D O O M O W O ° O O O O O O M O M O C �O t U1 O O 10 Lri a, u7 W O Q N M to M M 11') 10 c7 W N �O e. cfl H h c4 ce rn N N N H en 0 0 0 0 0 0A o O 0 _ 0 g °o ovj A 0 0 m oc > c4 N fA O O O O O o Cl cD O ° ° O A ° °C °C 0 0 0 `° •C o o �o ID to ai + M c» O > � N a w w a C m a O O O >, Cl O p 0 O 0 ° 0 a 4 ° 0 0 0 .�. C O O ° O O O M M cD m E Cn ° ° ° m £ M N C � m m c w a t p O O O O O O ° O O o C C cD o G o ° ° ° ° m C) Ln O J M 1! M W N to U icl En i:. H N O U m o a c U w m Yi 4 O d •°' v H °C' •v v OD C X Q C ai '4� VVG S G or O S C b b �3 v eo a �+ U0 u m v in fL 'C W C fn w •C G •w C C ••cam G G C C va S d L O eG Nv. O E C A 7 �C Ha. F, X R > GO H It 00 o `g.•' H E v bo v Ce b b oo �2S G R m v i o °}e° r E ti �" N �n '" 3 0 v m e o ti cc o a 3 t O in N c to n o o O to U C O v u O V C o C, o g o o °o g oo, 00, o S °o, o po C 4 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 � EA a 00 o in �n O O, FrJ.II� o ~ N � 0 N H ^� EH N VK p p O O p O O O O 8 O S O kh O a0o 0Op pq 8 p yj Q� O O� N O O N cO n v Ol Ol O O N p 'i fq g C p o g o O N N N O b m p N 0 n U3 > bq O o O O O O O a0 aq � C "• �b �D ID to C o in N a c o` > � kA w u, b > 0.� O C O T O Q 0 O C cl o F Co o kA Q 7 0Oc C A R LA O Ln C T N ry cm c s N o p �_ d O p O O O k p O O O U a M, xl ri w m F O O x 3 Ln N z T z ^ w N caw O ci U ¢„ U y O ro v > c v G ¢ O w OD F O W to d zt to _ N a a ¢ ar CJ v y ] w ° u o o F a CL. Qj c u G ¢ 3 e eo i� 3 o o ° u - o o ti p o <bc o ti O ° ° O c 0 • •V d Q u 0 0 0 0 0 0 "o o °o °o °0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o °0 0 00 0 0 0 0 o O rn o rn g o 0 CC 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al 0 a, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lrn to o 0 c d o o ° 0, o n o 00 N N lO N v p N N oo al N m g EA K bs bs o g o d 0 C °o Cl? cD M c> O N y N M N N cD N ih be O l n f7 cq Lf) v, N ci M a M K ...1 M .-� N tA W EA w A C C; °o O T O O c v 0 �rl c v � � m � E �o C T a O N GG � y R R o 0 0 0 0 0 00 L6 o o C7 CJ CJ Q Q o cD O O O O O W p n � 11i O 00 ac V .G N M cD N r+ r+ N d .d R kh d u) z o R w a O ° d ono $ Z F O Y u `, W $ W a a :3 w o O v r A p C > Ou O v W oo2v ,� a by Q o. w W d o a ° p cn a W � r .� A. u U v a o Z F. > - - m r?? °7S cx° r°L v w c V �c 00 v v d ti ti ar C-. x U ti o R o Ic F 3 E 2 o � v . y O p at aF' o Q O .R 0 u 3 a S > u u r � u u u [- V N d e d a h e 0 v d O u N O O O O O O �) n 0 O N n 0 10 O fV D` Q 't d' N O Cl; N ,N. O O d' N M N O n 00 GO n H M N LO N EA � O O O O O O O O 00 O O O 0 0 0 0� d o 0D 0 0 0 0 C> n N N N N N N rj U3 EA 00 yMi W S O M 8 0 � O O 4 0 0 � O O C 00 N N 0 0 M O O M O N {y 0[�- °EA N EA °fA- °D C14 m .b. O Cl) M Od'+ of n M EA EA EA � t, � n G N Lr� EA C) S W O O O O O N N O O O N O O 10 O M E\ O N 0` T O O �0 0 0 lf') V' eQ�� 0� O O N O O O EA Q. fM+1 O M OW EA Uf kA EA � U) EA p N O o00 A l N N N >N M 'T N ON N n N N N W EA w C) °o °O °O 00 o g o g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q4 CD> a C 0 0 8 °O °0 00 00 00 0 0 c C, q EA C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA A E � E ' E m = o � N C .N b rA y O O O O O 1 O eM O O w u� Cl O 8o O D, 0 0 D` O O U. O O O .M+ .T. 'Q C Cl K oo r, En U 00 � M vo M EA EA v E M y v o a ° Q � p N 3 --�� "M 'c' W t�p6 3 U o w N ^ v LU y cc w W R R N E U z 0,0 pa, ODD y p�„ w "to w p 2 U Q vi o ti b FO 5 c a 7 a ° y T. W W LT. G .yrJ" Q U1 C o iC 7 .Y. 7 CQ n CJ ono Q a E FW. a v O �' c" x ° 0 c c R x C4 -' ¢ ¢ d m y G °o E °- ° Q r. Q x x c o O 0 d a o °S F v o o o" 4 o c v o w can vu vu E- Q d A Q d m a 0 u V A H > 0. CA u u U c 0 •V d O V Now V 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o0 00 CD °o, 100 ° o0 0 C ° o o °r o o °o, oo CD o oo, o0 0 00 00• oo,oo, ° 0 0 n o 0 0 0 a 10 1f1 N �` 0, �N N � N .11' If1 CO N N N C I lO 0N N 10 'D C rl, M N N M M 10 1) N N N w to W 1f N N 0 N Lr N C N N N N N Cl N N N N N N N N N N N N rl N F 0 0 0 tAl Q g d v3 m 0 0 0 F» .i > m °o °o, 1°o S o 0 0 0 o g o °o, 1°0 ° o 0 0 ° o °o, ° oo, C:) oo, oo, 0 0 00, oo, oo, o o g S °n, �O N 10 �O �O o0 N N �D N N N 10 10 t0 T [V 117 �O N 10 �O N N N N N N 1D 1D (, 01 [V O� RS to to N to ,O C 111 In 10 m 111 Ln N N N C V1 N H I!'1 N �0 111 111 to to to to 1p �O to C lf) .L to M 00 10 Io 10 M M 1!1 M M M 00 00 h Q� M 00 M o0 10 M M Cr'1 M M M IC1 11; M O� M N N A �0 C' GO 16 1fi 1fi Q� Q� 0� O� GO . 10 �O O� . M C, a0 - O+ Q� . . . . . 10 O4 �O Q�M lV > Nffj N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N FG O O O > bR CA C b C E C •y o � R O v� y w o y F O U z o F cu 4 W o aw o ti w CJ $ o w a o C O ' •V d O V �n u-, 0 0 0 Cl o g g °o O O O O O O O �+'1 �--� O N M O O� V: O O O O O o O O O O O O u1 0 0 0 O a m o N o is w o 11 n O °W Q; N D` w O C W O Ol F 4` eM D` O o0 cn t+) �. 11'i u'i N �O N N � a' C M c0 N --i — - O— N � � E EA V) tn to O O O ° O � O p p O O O °(A Vi A kA A O O O ° O iA cD A o � C v3 A W w O O r' O N M O O? C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 N r Lo A co .o o6 o6 6 g °o °o o °o n O o°D N O n D; 00 O d' W O O; ... O` Vim' C M W N .�i M N EA bR fA us C: p O O S O a S O O ° p C IE o E A �C EA A o a N � L W tA U � x w w W U 0 U a >, H O. 0 ~EL. � y a ,`9 p N O W fl N 0 0 T z �' c °' u 3 a z Oh �n �' m z eAMo d LU fn w N. A v y O E N c. E ti Cl. o � d d > o U) m O ¢ ¢ O a x w 0 ¢ v� F- C7 c, V ¢ x 0 cn V c 0 •V d 0 V Yi C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° ° g g 0 o g o 0 0 0 g o 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 o g 4 ° °o o 16 O O ° ° O O O N ° $ O M O %D ol a 0 0 0 0 O n N °N O O O °N N lt1 O C ° oo to --t of al 0o 4» En F U; g g o °o, S o g 0 A o° `° m o � � � m O S °o O o o °v� 0 ocfl (A b � a o g ° 0 ° o o d Cl EA ° � � .G E» w w 0 ci °0• °o, °o. ° S S O O O °O N r4 O0 .0 NN p p N [l 1p a C ° °o °o 0 G 4 °cD ° ° °) U4 lj� F» O O a E H � i � A v) a ° O O p o O O o O O O O O 8 °° U. ° O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O ppp p p,Q q4 O O v°O 0 N 8 p O O C U G x o0 W h N M O M l� O u) M N w b '. Ui W o 0 g G V F N La o 0zz ti hti a 0 v O w s3 Z ¢87 0 0 S .5 2 I � cn v d U H w W o v � �� ti U � y w E w v a ,� M w pdp w w d v ti d wj w � V U ie •w ;a m OA C �° � N z :: •a 'p, d Q Y c tiv on o E " oo � Z y a •5 a g J4 g = i o c ti . 5 c oo d a c E d o ti r a p s ocn v 3 a v .5 c c o ti S O o o ti 0 0 O U) cn d v5i cn O n Q n u O w a a V cn V G1 V V [- U e 0 v _d O U O O O S O O O S O O O S S S O S O S O V! n O` N M O T M q O� M O� L� N �' M O M ID n,1 O O O O O O .�. M. O O O O 0 0 V4 O 00 O CD ID (..� N 'D M m ONO M N fA O O S O D luq 0 O EA C" co O co O CD S S S ° o °A p CD Y) A > S ° o °� O� 0 C th J W O O C O O O S O O 0 O S S O VH kA N O O > N M Cl) L� A d U3 O S O C 7 JE CD c' N O 'm n w ° °o °o °O °o °o S S ob S °o °o °o n , N m °o, S °o w ° o 0 0 M v x 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° V G KI 10 M O n 00 V n N N U 't N Cl) 10 N C' 10 OO W u U x u W N w u Y Q) Cp o a c o E O [ p y .ic G o ..� y O. ar y G a v U ,� a W a v X Q E 'E E a N > O v) U W w c 0 ti ° m w d N z � v —CL. Z W o a Q E V gcvp p a aj w O Y ti a 0, ° v U 'w i v v > > o S o ° ►� a m Lo U d d o o"o °,�' �; v E Q o �' x 3 V ca,, H 9S o •� •J °.' •o O ,-�, F' F" 3 c a F a p = v o O o o M a U O o o c N o v o O O a 0 i OF a > U F U FF Z W F S Q J4 ?4 w Q w Q ?4 F F U C 0 •V d V O eN-i O W 0000 o0 00 N 'D In 00 N q t\ 'A Efl O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O 0 10 6 0 %C 0 0 o c 10 M m o n CY, l l o m °o °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EA A > a o c o 0 0 0 0 0 p p O O O O O O O O 0 0000000 'A w w p v o o o 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' O N 00 M 0 0 h O O O O O Q cn EA Efl to M Up 'fl A O N O; O e}' 't N N l CD O `b' N .� H N N M d MEfl � Efl O T p O O O O O O O O 'O G p 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 OEA a O ' pm L N n A d w °o °o °o °o o °o y� 0 0000 � 000 � _ n o oo "It U xI N 1°o " ID v v 0 ar ti o a y � V o x w U o c U U w N h a m v m e a v o°wo o v o°n C7 � U oY°o a�i •-� ti N u T , o ti m c w ti U M d °5' _ U) 3 .. tC N Q ¢ A c Q u u o H a > a 0 u u p H u 0 .v d 0 U F F op O O O O O O O 0 0 00 00, O O N N C 0 ON a0 crj d� F C W W Cl) �O d d 10 LO c ua 00 00, 00, 0 0 00, g g OO, 0 0O, g g g cli oD 00 O O Iri M �O O fV t-I G M O M r m 1O w 1° n W N T W W O C 1,� N cl cl MM+ :� T N U� lus O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 _ O O O O O O O O O O O O Ct IA O� Q� d' u7 �O o0 b p h d� �O o0 O If1 N O CY, M m to � V' M zr C' U3 W W O a v a U T GO O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O T O M O O On, M n � O CD W Lq M cc 0n O O�y in 1 N C N A d O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O i Ia. w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o F ° w o 00 0 cli d 6 o6 o ri W N to W 'd' 07 O C O 1\ l� of tiC M m M m c7 M M I.L FC m M M M m M M M M F N d d r.. y X O 3 0 U c 0 .V as 0 U v _ g CD o o 0 a oho oao o o oao o� o R F ` N n N � a 10 Q) O) O N M ° O i v pO Cl CA O o OI O O O v Cl)M � N M ., N O W � C) a 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 Y N N S O > y N V 3 ~ N A o� EN WU o > _ N S a 0 oao o o a � CA C) o o a V .. _ 0 0 0 0 0 u ;� x o 0 C, o �W w 04 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o p a o 0 0 0 o p a o 0 0 0 0 L= O F A O G p O 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 W OA 00 7 v Q) zl J R v °: O 7. to v O O 0 0 0 O of 0 O a 0 O O o O O a 0 0 0 0 O F to t ��II Q7I C O C LEI a+ ,C 0 it p N C .� n m v C W 0 0 O 0 �' O a �' p C:) o a o VO �' p y. o a o o �' 0 O W. O O O � N o0 D; O o� O d: �: �+ .N-�00 00 Cl) U G ~O c O n d N '. F LU u O a o a p O O O O O a 0 O O O O OI O V v a a O ,> G O a [ S S S O � rte. Q 1n N n ,0 N f�4 m O c�rrcrNNN]]]]4IIII N O �O O �O G d 3 U m x u v F. O i b N @ R .� m C G v O K m v C4 i F y m d .� N V v c� v v N V v ^ m m m ^a m _ ;a a rg ;° �.° �° 3 C a v ? }? v' a a o a a v fxfx `L' C7N V fxfYW' � cn R' aN cA W' R: � G W' R: fx (.7H � 4L� `L�' cn 3 � W' fx (7F pa u 00 a C C O F 0 0 0 o a o o a o C) o a o ° .y O O O N N N O N O V O of Cl m Q cM�l .. z w z .. en r• t\ opC] m 3 .y o F 0 0l 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o d o O >��.. ° cD d LO Q N M c Q O z cl c14 V '� m z i�1 N z O o Q o 0 0 � p a o 0 0 �5 G O _> �n ppGgO��� U V 3 "' (Vl N z z (W N z Q O w C (� i W U ° ° OI O c4 O y� p� �' ao o d �' x o z � z " z O" LU W ° ° O O a 0 O O O of o o ° bo Q, 0 0 N N O p A Q Ol oo Q Q Q 00 cl O Q Q .N-+ z z Mz � M �' zzzi � N ,.., zz '..� :3 O pF T o O O o p p O O pp O I w N QQI QQ � zzzl zzzl z F v M o 0 0 01 0 0 0 o a o o 0 0 e� G '� OCO OOA ON � I rn O Q Q Q ^N'' ��Il call .N-�Q Q N 06 C (n O C M z ZI M z z N N z z ��. ,_. z z z .-+ co o ^. N C L A H O W O O O O �' O a �' N O c:, d 0 O �' p o O a 0 ° N N Z. cO �p N 00 N 0 V' lo .N-: N U m M C) N n o V' N V O a p d o O o O O O a 0 O O O O d 0 V vN C 6 v C > O x �+ ° N p y' p Q ° ° I l O O Q (CID 4 N oc a, .N. 0 N 10 N O 7 z Iz ca to Q F Q F a W w m z a H R v N m A ° E a A N XX R O M 'w Z, y y v v m y m A 3 A x Q .. ^~' � R in ° m � 0 3 v 3 w v N G o E v c o o o > 3 a s a� cq W T N rn 7, d w ... w A U 4J N v YO ¢'6! Y A V w � � � � � � zrzat� � 0zv'� �naavon � xxac� F � xP4 3 � azc� F°- O Q v bo m A C C O H ee�� O oa o m 0 0 O O d 0 M n y O Lq o v y m •d � v oo rn aD cri 1� 10 a F i N0 'LS O G v M %O CI M �--� [� A O N O .-+ ^6 N V� O� � N U=" R 00 C) V .-+ V i6 a 0. O O T V O O CD M O O a m O O M o o d m O a m m m d O > ^-. a vVi V; N 0; O� h O; 00 W 00 CY) ..-i 7 .. m W w p O N O d V N K T d N N C) G U 0J d°i• y0 •G N v cad N W C7 CD o oaf o Oao o d � ao o t, m d11 10 W `� z z z M ,, O O 0 01 0 M �--� O O of O M O 00 00 O �ry O � OD N 1f l[; O� 1n If; T s F /I C14 C4 O to r, N O Ly C vi N R O v d; 4"I N n N N m N N LEI 6V v'6 z _ W w a C to y G M O° V 1 N d N O O a O � . I O a O 00 7 N N i 'o r, pp V l(1 00 V N oc� r4 N N 00 I° N N ° QC4 00 Cl)¢ • N W ri ' N 00 d' r �p g o z� tw � F ad� •- N G eC N 6 C 3 a O � O a O � O 0 � Ln o 0 O O V d 00 - � Lr o N Ll " Mcn � N N 06 fN O O d' F V d o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o d o V a N N 10 F x u p� O 00 � N 8 00 - C4 10 N M � °° x N '••� z rp 0 F a F W W z a .2 F. m v yVpi h pVp y N N R 3 3 0 •v 3 U � � � o @ v •� � o"�n v � 7 v �_ •� .�'. � y •w y y A _ m C d a a v v v N V a z c m 3 m � v m ^a 3 m ... a, :° � v =°- =°• � v -`°- =-° 3 �^ •• v ;; v°J, J v G 3 3 Lr a, vOi O G 0 W :9 >, v y 7 F w Uw w w U cn U W' 4 CG rv- m d eo A a a 0 F oho oao � � y oao � � N 00 °N pp�� O Cl) u� T, O1 G oo cl N C 00 S1 a' 10 _ w 1 N n d' N .0 � N O •�• O a 0 M O d Cl) a O O O M O Q d M O O M O d M 00 U •�a r W N o 00 00 o O a o o ° :v d o 0 0 0 0 'v Op o 0 0 0 G O > U eM Ode ,d '6 N N NI N C C E ci u a-. W O ~O �. O o o Z a o ao o �z ao ° � dv� -14 aj W2 z z z m O O o a o m 0 V o a o M ° o W 00 C O O O W W n ° ° ° O ° ° O C:) t 0 C y p R 0 0 O d' v¢� N n N N Cl) N N m F C b w to v O O O t-I q O d O � O d O 1 N O 00 lf� N h N 00 Q; W �' a t4 Q�ryII N 'Q'1' ¢I N zl ¢ V' N /-A O N �I r. I h A N n � C14 0 ao �10N Z, oo N a Cl Q1 10 c)n N Cl)y N O 10 00� 00 N N ..7 v w U v d o CA C) 0 0 ooOOao o Oooao p 7 F � t6 o M x o FQ�.. ¢ g�•, g° o � O�O � D °Na � ol N � oo 1�n 0 N 0o Cl) o N n V 00 FG W W Ln z x F F U ¢ v z 3 3 o a R w �� b b v tG u N X 4J 'b " R N Q a v y z v a h U a v cqi om m R C, ° 3 m R g y rt m in m m 3 o Cli aCi ar .= 3 +a O v v C 0 w m O w y V H a° a ° Esc w �Q Uvto wUJ) U° zzw C� U) zzcn U') U) � cexxt7E wxcn ¢ A a on A e c 0 F 0 o a o 0 o a o 0 m °O °o o °-z: a N N O O O G '� u7 N h lD N C, of r4 O p �' ID ! O` , (fi o0 oo M .N-. O .n w � '. M r u u d 0 oao 0 0 C:, O o o a o 0 0 0 0 o a o N N N M O Cl) cD C14 4)M a' � �-' w y 0 y .w a o O O O O O pQD�J7 Q o 0 0 o O y E W .."°. WO o cl o oao o a � ao o M a � d -+- o > v O S N y N .. O O 8 c:, o a o cl o oao o o G M 81 N E � O �I o0 N � O Cl) CA O L,I FJ m O O 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 w oo c o > G " 0 0 c:, 0 0 0 o a o o 0 0 oao o o v N N N N O C Q N pp o o O �D N o0 O� O L ed VI E C � O QI 00 G.1 00 N N ^ O zi ,N. ° C M z v' d' !J '" oo o F i � '� N C A h O+ [W a 0 �O~ O w. O V� 14 c) c)O V. O O OO � Q` It M 6 � � M dN �--� 'O F v V qd r�. o ao ao 0 0 000ao 0 000ao U R G1 o R w ° 0 o 5 Q U) °ND o o� � o °8 o w c 0 � Ln n tn (J .. .. '. F Q F a W w z z F F E v y N W U y R R v o eo tea, z y o E y w R It c v o R o, c x °"' a _° N U fs v cpi :6 .0 a, M m X _ v A p .. 3 3 v � u 0 in R a 3 3 0 >' >, aj +R-. A.w v A R w v v v +a 3 :a � aC4 U � v � P4 WU � � � J aa � 5 � a1% uF. � 3 � � � c� H A d A 0 F 0 � N d: d: U R M rM Lo n n N N 10 Qs n OM U; Lr) N H v o CD a kFn LR �ocfl Qd a� E o G ro u r It N � N v N N Z, 1f1 N MM�lll ..1 0. m C o 8 0 0 m kn kp� tA F v > 0 0 0 N w a 0 D O amTS „v �, o : 0 ~' c F n ° R o ° v C)u v v 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C V V V w bo G ro ro ro G G G Qd v . O d r0.. w w v N N � am � o � � [ z z z z z z o O O N G O O O a w w w Cl. O Cl. 2:1� G O O O u v v w . bo Bee m o m x C R A R t6 t6 E 8 8 ¢ ro ro ro o 0 co 00 � - 00 R g t to 10 u A c+i lf1 N n [� M O , z a rGO. r GO N o0 to N N H3 M W .L V y to fA � EA (fl En T V a a p vo 'oo w d 10 if� kA It d ? Uxr a � .`. C 0 .�. N N N m "� "� a. N U d V U ' o }° O Cl. CL. v :° X E U v ° v y 3 x x 0 v v G f x V .� en Q) a u m v d Q o v m d d x N 3 E H " ° M N ° m O w m u " eo1° ° m " ° d U U m > w o o ff 5 a o v - C4 W v Ci .� v v x° .y y v ro y ad O N h Fir N O m m W O m � U �... T rG. o _G G aEi C's V U u O v " w A vO v C o v E E '6° a m m w w d [-° Q E° U F " w T a a 0 " .a ro v �' " o 0 7 m��a a Cvo a N NO M OMO N ll N U Cl) N 1� N � t+�D7 N N W r-i 11 i N C� O� � M EA EA F v A. pd 0 o cn C P.G M C \ Oo v u') LO a, t� ° C y C14 v V U R r N O O O O O N C h 0 0 � °q It v F°, d > R a .VC. Fd w Cl. t?m B O O cu N O N � cRERy vp 0 a O C 7 G F �a�p � Fa tyE s s HOB � o � V y ai -G C p a dE v v d0 v v v v G K C ... 7 v F O -p -p O v > w G z z z N � R R 10 u c N r US .°, w v O oGO lu 0 F a w y , EQC, T a R G F R x Ucncn V cnU o G y O Ln Go co °° ° L 6 I n N o n > a Vi O) r 00 ll') oc (h ka N t= u °' p $ ° O � � � � ° 0 • o to � •� > V x 0 d o 0 O w °3 G 0.v d w a m N eN••i .••. N M y w F. O d p. v g u xr a 14 E r = X vs vv 3 i V NO y y w H x N V �° fill V p � C w 6 .N y v O V Vl e u p I r t R R a wo R Q 4•-I O rRi u u o E oo:° ° M W Q u `^ V 0.1 m •� O p E- y v C C GL y F z o y a v w v o a m w ° R E ° H g o c v Q U- ? m O~ R V 'V '� v V u n v z w w S E p ° :° c Q Cl -32 w > v ° v m E E ° p E m w w_Q H Q H V ww' ucn P; F N N � O W M N \u°) ^ R M N N W 10 ~ O •-+ T CO V\ M ih fA EA F v � L1 —C,)f m ¢ "1 CD W u v °. N Vi OA R N N M � � R RO '1 N O M O O O M p [V m G° V d oq o� fl E° v > Q) F, a v a N O N 00,� � a s 4 N N r4 c E> y C z N GC4 .G.. v O W y 0. G C m " VUv V VU $ .j� a u N „ o w y R W Wy� O �O �D M LO 00 00 .--� A 0"1 F ° O N w N u r K ^ CY, m N R O R V�' n M O t, > z V N Y' In 00 M W u t` N in `�� .» .L p �" y ifl ffl ffl V1 � �. c U a a > a a{ 0 C 0 v Iq m 7 v� 6R Ea R C O 7 v w > ux E Er ~�" N N �' r. R 'O V a 'n c c Ln m N �" 0 L1. d u N W u ° } O m r x u ° Q) v v 3 d M V a v G [= 0 N u .N..N y ^° b .O .C. V u N A v w u ,d F R y 0 C m > v' .4 OG�D 0.0v1 u v DA:°. v0, m V G G A WA v v v �° a v 6 E E o H o m y, v d o m A ? U m u F �, o u d U> ° v C4 R u cu o � o m .� W A 0 A m m W W Q F Q E.O. u a m v � C. R'. C7cn C' H m 00 C31 N M vOi o0 n O M O O 00 10 00 N U N co lr eV) ' W cl` N N 0. m d W dOn p�+ n N fA U O CL w N N m '5n t' N N 0n M E vi 00 R Vi EA O [ V u R r �. T O� O � N N I Vi C" o IN] N O O V4 EA N O O N O N 0.m tS w R E O O G E v O v F" «- [ H 7 i0. w v .E 0.0'. u s s , s y C 7 a m R 0. E E ww .N. w .N. y a H O y 'O 'O O v ; _ M W If'f O �' F O 'n (h ONQC' N a 1f1 O h N n 10 00 V M er Q N N W N n M EA tri Lr)O Efl M Efl U4 N V4 U4 F O, � FA M cy h N N Cl) n ° O v ih u U ED R r .O. y N OG N N `c00N'00�7J�II N IR m 'v .-.o �ngg � gpo R v R ° fii � Efi v > 7 av C. � o � aye a moo E E F � > , x° !z (5 ° E RO v 0 O 0 �r] 7 i A E a A 'O r� +O- O O z M v z z N cm y C A 2 w c ° ° o o cc R d R a E E x Qcncn QcnQ V .°� v o IN D\ I+' h l� In N R O In M Ln .Np n N .D O� [� > 00 Oa) >- Lr Cl) [-,t CM w I!) n N i v aj y fA fA EA 6R .. U ° > •d Lo In N A CL f in CA, m m o y a u x " � r y v L G w a v d, n W cn� .� o m N N 70J11�N" o n, a h U° u IV E O G a' N X „ 6 3 s r u O w v) v v v u a R y T > y F R i on O ii ° o 3 F E F � G > v % m U 0 E eo w v '; 6 • 6 c w v m .� m E «C, ° O w .� O m m U O F O G u Q U y w U 'v 'v v ° E n v y z y ,a R .. 'G N y a�i R O U O O O .R. .R. �C w ]--> o "0 � EE ° o R R w" wQ ° °° > o R vii U F �. ��V. w C7 cn R: F i ¢ �Q z z N 8 d; � G O bR m y m -T C� mQ a z " F o Q Q o M z z M G In n ri rs O T- 00 M a> � Q O � v m m o M N n CD"W7 p G G M M E � � N O Q� GO or N. Cl) ": O O bl3 ffl V1 Ep 00 .--i N 00 � Q` M N (A N > O O O w N fA L00 N �, A O D N O � ry O � N w EA oll 1N+ N O >. M N N - N O Cl) h O -6 � t{3 C4 N O EP O U') In 4 .E oo o N fd U7 O M N � v ow U oQQ � QQIQ �. ozz z <JJZ y � N o 0 o i» v o o v R 10 o m o E G R v F MM � � U �o c h v m p, u y w a Q v 3 v 72 p F A v x Y 'v U oo a _ a 00 y 00 f6 t0 v' G O G G h G y p U p O v v v m y v N v v U > U 5 m m� U co ate+ V • V @ m V n p o F ocn o � n3 U p3 . F C, m v o0 U U a .."v., C"- m o '2 U ifs =.� Q V F U z z F F `\\ `\§\\ \ \\\\} � \ Cl) fl)§ e ® e / a ( - ( i 2 � \ ) - - r % j \ � � § ® ® � ` - 7 § \ §m0 \ % /\ CL. ( � ( & ( & t oo \3 _ {\ � {\ � } j \ F, / \ m Q $ \ { ) / \ } 5 2 \ 3 2 \ \ \ a / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } } } \ ) § \ \ ad \ f ) ) / \ ) § a . a - ]_ _ ; bn 3 § t E m § e § } 7 \ d \ ) $ \ § ( )wi \ ¥ O O O O O O O N n N N o MM V m � cmi u� V m ocli u) V a° rn o ° m 'r' I m m Uj N �O r M M O y k O y 0 Q Q Q N O O v 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 R' N2 iri p� 0 0 o y ZR kf�v efl o w G n p won° 0 p a to F°, cn C F v A cn F •� o o �p CCD) O o c v N O a o O O p .O+ N N R N v rr W v o ° C C � .d M Q to Q C R C 'd tC R C .G R O E E O O p ° V V F m CO F W H c0 � E d d to c c p o 0 aCi C a G � is m a O _ ad yy v ad A v v 0 0 0 3 Q v u v 3 y Q) n N v R Q v ,n F m m CG a n y 3 z m u C 0 z A 7 v C o un awl Qj t r4 w (.� F t6 tun CL u F 16 to C4 R' C.7 H O , . \ m u \\ \ \ ƒ \ \ \ } Q } ) 3 E» ® ^ \ \ § / \ g ) ƒ = 9 ƒ = 2 \ � _ Q, \ 2 } ) cn 22 ƒ w {/ - ® E / a • j / S2 2 } , \ \ \ } 2 ) { ƒ g g \ ® gQ � { / Z \ 7 § ( ) ) () ) \ } ) § ) / / § } » k \ § - � It \ z § f = y $ y $ ¢ / / a = 3 c § G & ( GO / \ ) * C4 % 2 § \ M \ /tz § ® } J j 2 \ \ 7 ) \ ® 7 2 [ ) \ \ \ ƒ \ 5 � ) } \ { y \ * / / 2 / � ) e Ago e 3 mmm a . \ % � m \ / — / / Ln kA %§e c e § ƒ _ ƒ ) 2 G = § % 2 } ° 2 5 / ƒ( } \ e2 _ $ ) � \ § � } \ \ \ 7 § \ / \ \ § 2 k 2 or ® a 2 « / I \ ` \ � » 3 \ 7 \ \ \ \ \ ƒ § 3 z $ 3C4 Q \ A TS v u o W C F T R 3 > E 'i' a0 N O N M F CF. F GR o o o 0 0 0 v w" x m H x V O a V >. o o r _ 0 F u � o Q O V1 O �•'- �+ O O OM M .a w o > v c cn >. b « a, 3 O o ° r ° cn R rn � � v O N p > N v 3 O o 0 0 ow x M u � F N r m �, O� O aJ � G a, o C� o a rj Cl) m m L Lr) H a! Q 6, 3 r M 00 y � tf> � d � x > E ad 'n F F o o e4 m C4 i A is � '� �1 •� V1 A x C ,a «uv. C] Ey U V nU F OF a Oa F V F m o o o Q a o R p ca F a o aj U v V v y aF r m R E F a, w 5 d a W m R W w a m m u 0 » \ ?\ E - - Ic ° - ~oc Jg - ( e » � > E n © ° { ( @ c 3 ( \ { E 2 \ � ° { ° n = c ° = 4 2\ƒ \ ( { r r \ m = 't { w � ^ ° / A = ! o ; ± { { = r r e e . a = m � ± / 7 ) \ \ \z z \ § _ c [ » � gam ± � = / a 3 223 \ ag� � &E& 5 ƒ ( » 5 - 2 2 « 0 5m= « / ° � yam \ ? i0 } ! 2 2 § ) } \ r \ ) / F. § ±=2z -2 U-) / ) & � . & _ \ ( / ±7J e e e e ue # 2u 00 00 m ( §74 j § § e e e /\ ) e e e Ln kA ® ® 4 F ) ƒ \ j / QS M C4 cc C4 � ® - ® e ( m /� 9 ƒ ƒ \\ mod ] & # # fj § r4 10 3 Epo9 � ) ( W \ TT ƒ\\ƒ� \ E � � e ZT E Q, / C7 10 00 » _ ° e } \ § � ) a iz { { � c ± \ a $ / o ( \ ( ; ® Q, \ g f } \ § § ƒ ) ) \ 6 ƒ ) \ § / O " V O N � � U � _23 2-//; O N a c o U5 w a 0 x A c N R It w �/� TWA CN O � W V O i c cN w L � 3 fII U 0 a 0 i PLO sr* ~ O U � N O to o a� cz � U w • • HQ Q � w w 171 171 171 J~ d G � � Q 8 � Ili�1►I Q W ' O a 0 rZ M o cis r R s H � rZ . CA � X � --I N r*) II zi X11 v W 4� c 4-A x W �.+ aA � w 4.4 o 0 L71 0 0 0 0 0 M d W I it Ai O O O W o � O N w w � N O 0 0 � V V � IIAMRII _ �_ N Lf) [� M N N nj N N N M I `J Lf') Lf') d'! N Lf) di a Q b in, kn- z cc x �T� w in, b} io:�- in, Eit,� {f} ,3 O O m N O tC F-� oo n oo L-� 06 06 C-� x [bs in, iF�- -,C� -Els bG. kP- V r ccS ••� _ 4 M, u � UcnQ uj U L6 116 II III�1� 0 � � o w w O G T�7 • w O � •O N 4.0 . . .� c ) r ;Z4 PC 0 cn I I'll U ..� o � � ® •� c� c� � � o logo*.,. 4 w 4-4 O logo*., x c oe rc� 0 Poo d i . o 1,4,� U rc� � � w a� w H U � 4 wok 5 o � � II i U a� x a W w ♦JJ� o 0 0 . .'"' o grill v� Q C)..4 cn cis •� •F o W O .Polo \r v � c •� Y P*IO o - ` N .� 4.0 � 0 � 00 � oN .6 •� CU U i I W 0 0 4� x w � Z � � 0 PEE( . . • cu X �_ u � � � •� • Wi 00 4� p L • • H too 0;h-1 � a a M V � O � III11�' VJ G r ° Z E a c+ ea � v� • • Q � N