Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADMIN-12-97~~ ~~~~~~ ~` `~ - -_ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'THE Ct7RPQRATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEARINGTQN pN:EiTSBAPA REPORT flAeetingc General Purpose and Administration Committee ~ # ~3 ...pate:. ~Iranday's, ~'i 1=7, :f~7' Res. # 97 A-aa =97. RBpert #: ADMIN-12-97 File #: By-1aw # ~ gum; GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD: POSITION PAPER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON- R~o~nrnendation$: i R is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Coancfl the following: 1. THAT Report Admin 12-97 be received; 2. THAT the attached position paper and its recommendations be endorsed as the position of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposal to establish a Greater Toronto Services Board; and 3. THAT a copy of Council's resolution and this report be forwarded to Mr. AA Farrow, Special Advisor to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, M.P,R John O'Toole, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the regional .and area. muniapalities in the Greater Toronto Area. At its meeting of March 24, 1997, Council referred a number of correspondence items pertaining to a proposal to establish a Greater Toronto Services Board to the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer and directed that a recommended position be prepared for Council's endorsement on April 7, 1997. At the same meeting Council endorsed a resolution of the Regional. Municipality of Durham which inGuded the following: • the creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board with the authority to manage, deliver or generate capital for services was not supported;. ~~ 1247 . ' `~~ :~' ADMIN 12-97 _ PAGE 2 ~ if established, representation on the Board should be inclusive of the-member municipalities within the Greater Toronto Area and include the active participation of the-Province; and • that if the Province were to create such a Board, its authority and mandate should be limited: to .providing a forum for the discussion of long-farm strategic planning for the GTA, coordination of cross-boundary servicing issues, and dispufe resolution through facilitation and mediation. Theattached Position Paper amplifies the basic position outlined by the above resolution and is forwarded to Council for endorsement. Respecttully submitted, W. N. Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer Attach. April 3, 1997 1248 Greater Toronto Services Board: Position Paperof the Municipality of Claringbon Apri17,1997 1249 spy Any changes to governance and service delivery by municipal government cannot be built only on principles of efficiency but must appropriately balance the principles of equity and accountability. Clarington Council supports the retention of the Regional level of government as the primary service delivery vehicle for the major infrastructure requirements of the Greater Toronto Area. The GTSB should generally be limited to roles of strategic planning, coordination and dispute resolution. The GTSB cannot in form or function be perceived as another level of government. One of the few areas of direct service delivery appropriate for the GTSB is to assume the downloaded GO Transit system and the municipal role for economic development in the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance. There is an important role for the GTSB in planning and coordinating the overall transit services in the GTA with the goal of developing an integrated "seamless" transit system; four regional transit systems and the TTC should replace the many local transit systems which currently exist. There is no role for the GTSB in the management or delivery of services such as arterial roads, water and sewer systems, and waste management. Membership on the GTSB should be based on equal representation from each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. Representatives should include the Regional Chairs and representatives of the local level of government in each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. Representation should be chosen by indirect election from existing municipal councils. The GTSB should have no authority to tax directly. Administrative costs should be shared on the same basis as membership from each region. Capital and operating cost sharing for GO Transit should be determined by the GTSB. It must be made cleaz to municipalities that the introduction of the GTSB will not result in forced amalgamations or other jurisdictional changes within the GTA. ~~~~ ~. Report The Provincial Government has proposed the establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) to plan and coordinate service delivery across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Mr. Milt Farrow was appointed as Special Advisor on the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) to advise the Government on how to implement the GTSB. In order to stimulate discussion on the proposed role and operation of such a Board, a document was prepared entitled "Developing the Framework for a Greater Toronto Services Board: A Discussion Paper". It addresses the terms of reference for Mr. Fan•ow's appointment, specifically: • the authority and powers of the GTSB; how should the GTSB be governed; • what type of services should the GTSB concern itself with; • how it should be paid for; and • what relationship it should have with municipalities, the public and the provmce. This report has been prepared for Council's consideration in response to the discussion paper. Context Clarington is situated on the eastern periphery of the Greater Toronto Area. It is a consolidation of four municipalities established with the introduction of regional government in 1974. In area, it is the size of Metro Toronto. It has strong rural roots but recent growth has resulted in increasingly stronger ties to the urban communities of the larger metropolitan area. Clarington is a successful working example of the integration of urban and rural communities in a single administrative unit. 1251 ~. Clarington's previous positions on municipal reform have been: • Clarington is a viable economic union of communities and there should be no changes to its current boundaries; • the proposed formation of a Greater Toronto Regional Government was not supported; • the current Regional government has proven itself to be acost-efficient, accessible and accountable level of government and should not be dissolved; • the 7 Point Plan of the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs (February 16, 1996) was endorsed, including the establishment of a GTA Coordinating Forum; and • the Rural Mayors Report was endorsed which also identified the need for a GTA Coordinating Forum. There is wide consensus that change is needed to address the problems of the Greater Toronto Area. These problems are more profound in the centre than they are at the periphery. Clarington has always been willing to see that the good of the whole GTA depends on the health of all parts. Thus, Clarington has participated in the process to improve the current system of governance and service delivery in the GTA. All of the work over the past few yeazs on shaping growth and reforming governance in the Greater Toronto Area has recognized that the health of the GTA lies in addressing the needs of its components.. A strong vibrant GTA requires a form of governance and the delivery of service which can address the needs of the core urban centre, the suburban growth areas and the rural hinterland areas as an integrated whole. Urban populations cannot be artificially separated from rural azeas. Clarington fulfils a key role in the GTA: its residents are part of the GTA labour force, its recreation azeas and open spaces are utilized by the urban residents, its agriculture and aggregate resources of contribute to the economy of the GTA. The transportation problems of the GTA cannot be solved without addressing the "lifestyle choice" of the many residents who choose to live in the smaller communities like Courtice, Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono while working in the lazger communities of the GTA. Municipal boundaries by their nature are artificial: there is no such thing as a "natural urban boundary". Urban boundaries can never fully account for complex economic relationships, natural features, or social and cultural ~Z~2 ,~. characteristics of its residents. Municipal administration must be lazge enough to efficiently deliver services to its residents but small enough to be fully accountable to its taxpayers. Any changes to municipal governance and service delivery must not only be built on principles of efficiency but it must appropriately balance the principles of equity and accountability. Efficiencies cannot be achieved by weakening some municipalities to create a few strong governing units. The delivery of services cannot be made more efficient by reducing accountability with structures that cannot be accessed by local residents and businesses. Coordination in the GTA Clarington Council supports the retention of the Regional level of government as the primary service delivery vehicle for the major infrastructure requirements of the Greater Toronto Area. This level of government is large enough to provide the economies of scale and the levels of expertise necessary to deliver expensive infrastructure and social services and yet remains close enough to its residents to deliver accessible and accountable government. At the same time, we recognise the need for the coordination of major infrastructure improvements. As the Province appears to be abandoning its traditional role in coordinating and assisting in resolving inter-municipal disputes, there is a role for some structure to undertake this work. The GTSB may be the vehicle for this role. The immediate problem There are varying views on the powers and authority that the GTSB should be granted. The difficulty for the government is that there is widespread consensus that the GTSB should not be another level of government. If it has limited powers, the coordinating function is largely dependent on persuasion and good- will. The task of coordinating may not be effective if the new agency has no teeth. On the other hand, by providing the GTSB with a strong mandate with regulatory and funding powers to influence decisions, there is the inherent problem that this new agency would, for all intents and purposes, be perceived as another level of government. The long term problem The Discussion Paper indicates that a flexible framework should be created for the GTSB which would allow it to grow and change over time. This evolutionary approach would see the GTSB gradually assuming more services as it becomes better established. Over the long term, it would seem that one 1253 ~.. level of government will need to be eliminated to find a home for the GTSB. This is not part of the Special Advisor's mandate. However, decisions should not be made to introduce the GTSB without a clear direction from the government about the future of governance for the four Regions in the GTA. Will Regional government be eliminated? Will Durham become acity- Region like Metropolitan Toronto? Neither of these aze acceptable to Clarington. In defming a role for the Greater Toronto Services Boazd, the following principles should be used: • it will result in a stronger GTA; it strengthens local municipalities and recognizes locally-elected representatives; • it recognizes regional governments as the primary service delivery vehicles for higher order services; • it solves inter-regional or cross-boundary problems; • it is accountable and understandable to the taxpayer. Role of the GTSB The Discussion Paper identifies six possible roles for the proposed Greater Toronto Services Boazd as follows: Strategic Planning The GTSB would establish the direction for fixture servicing needs, specifically relating land use plans to a strategic plan for the provision of infrastructure and services such as transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply services. Coordination The coordination ofcross-boundary plans and services could be undertaken in a variety of ways. It could be a loosely structured forum to coordinate the timing of infrastructure improvements more through the power of persuasion and co-operation. Alternatively, the GTSB could have a coordinating role through specific regulatory functions or budgetary approval processes. For example, the GTSB could be empowered to approve regional and area municipal servicing plans or regional capital budgets. 1254 Management The GTSB could have a direct role in the management of infrastmcture and services. If this role was chosen, the GTSB would determine the service standards, decide who should deliver the services (public or private sector) and would probably own the infrastmcture. Service Delivery The highest level of responsibility would involve the GTSB not just in planning, coordinating and managing services but it would be responsible for all aspects of the service including delivery, operating and capital fmancing, and the setting of user rates. It would be similar to a commission under the Public Utilities Act. Dispute Resolution Another possible role for the GTSB would be that of a dispute resolution agency for servicing issues. The Board would have powers to require additional studies or analysis and make binding decisions on the service providers. The GTSB would replace the role currently filled by provincial ministries and/or the Ontario Municipal Board. Capital Generation The GTSB could have a role in assisting municipalities to find capital funding for servicing projects. It is proposed that by using the entire financial base of the GTA, the GTSB could get a better rate for long- term borrowing. Clarington's position is that the GTSB should generally be limited to roles of strategic planning, coordination and dispute resolution. The only exceptions to the above is that the GTSB could assume the management and service delivery function for GO Transit and could assume the municipal role for economic development in the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance. Strategic planning should be undertaken with full participation of municipal staff. It should focus on the broad parameters of growth with a specific emphasis on development patterns, population and employment forecasting, transportation and servicing requirement. 1255 M' The coordination function should be undertaken in a forum without regulatory powers. It would rely primarily on persuasion and cooperation. However, it could fulfill its role without undernuning regional government with the following powers: in the case of disputes, the GTSB would be the binding authority (provided that each region and Metro Toronto had parity in representation); and the GTSB would approve the capital plans and budgets for each regional authority for specified cross-boundary services identified in the GTA infrastructure plan. Services An evolutionary approach to the types of services under the jurisdiction of the GTSB seems to be the preferred direction of the government. This has been described as the "walk before you run" approach. Under this process, the GTSB would have legislative framework for a lazge number of services but only a few services would be designated by the Minister initially. Over time, it is proposed by the Province that that additional services would be added to the mandate of the Boazd. This evolutionary approach is viewed with much concern by the Municipality. GO Transit The Province has asked the Special Advisor to give special attention to the importance of GO Transit as part of his broader review. The Discussion Paper notes that the government intends to transfer responsibility for GO Transit to the municipal sector later in 1997. Given the government's commitment to download responsibility for GO Transit, this is one of the few areas of direct service delivery which the GTSB would assume. It is a service which extends across the entire GTA and beyond. Since funding will become a 100 percent responsibility of the municipal sector, the GTSB should determine the funding formula for operating costs that are not recovered through user fees. The funding formula must reflect the level of service to the benefiting communities including those outside of the GTA. 1256 Transit There is a strong need for the coordination of municipal transit systems in the GTA. In Durham and many other parts of the GTA, transit systems are operated by area municipalities. This has led to a patchwork approach with "have" and "have not" municipalities. Wkrile social services are concentrated in lazger municipalities, residents of smaller communities have no access to these services except by public transit. Most transit systems do not cross municipal boundaries, faze and transfer privileges aze inconsistent, there is duplication of service between GO buses and local transit buses and there is a lack of a long range plan for an integrated transit system. The fast critical step is to establish regional transit systems outside of the Metro Toronto Area: Durham in the east; York in the north and Peel/Halton in the west. The TTC should continue as a regional transit authority within Toronto. The consolidation of the 161oca1 transit systems into four regional level transit systems would overcome many of the existing problems and yet accountability would remain at the regional level of government. Even with this consolidation into regional transit systems, there would be an important role for the GTSB in planning and coordinating the overall transit services in the GTA. There would be a need to integrate the four regional transit systems with the inter-regional GO Transit system. The goal would be the establishment of a seamless transit service and the coordination with broader transportation policy for the GTA. Inter-regional Roads The government is reducing the provincial role in planning, funding and operating roads which are considered to have more of a regional or inter-regional role. Regions have been able to construct, operate the regional road system in an efficient manner. However, there have been problems in planning and coordinating the construction of roads with aninter-regional function. For many years the Region of Durham has been attempting to improve connections with Metropolitan Toronto without much success. The Taunton-Steeles connection, even when constructed in Durham, was not coordinated with improvements in Metro Toronto. Clarington believes there is a role for the GTSB in planning and coordinating the major arterial road system within a broader transportation plan which includes provincial highways, GO Transit and regional transit systems. The GTSB would also have a valuable role in resolving disputes. However, Clarington supports the retention of regional government as the agency responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance of the arterial road system. B 1257 .- Sanitary Sewers and Water Regional governments have been effectively constructing and operating sanitary sewer and water supply services over the past 20 yeazs. These systems have been managed in partnership with the Province. The Province has established standards for sewer and water supply systems and the regions have determined the best method for delivery. There is no need to establish a system for the GTA which differs from other parts of the Province. It has been noted, however, that there are some cross-boundary problems which have not been effectively or efficiently addressed under the current system. In particular, urban areas or entire regions which do not have the benefit oflake-based services aze dependent on servicing through other urban centres or regions. It is recognized that there is a need for a servicing master plan to address infrastructure needs which transcend regional boundaries, and that disputes between regions need to be resolved without protracted and costly negotiations. To address these concerns, Clarington would support a limited role for the GTSB in strategic planning, coordination and dispute resolution for sanitary sewer and water supply infrastructure. Waste Management Clarington views with deep concern any proposal which would consolidate responsibility for waste management with the GTSB. Given its large land area, Clarington has been the focus of past efforts to establish a solid waste management mega-facility. Waste management is a very complex and politically sensitive matter. Any agency or level of government which is responsible for siting new facilities must have full accountability. It cannot operate at arm's length from the residents who would be closely affected. The previous failures to achieve aGTA-wide solution would indicate that a regional solution has a better chance of success. Accordingly, Clarington does not support any role for the GTSB in waste management. We have noted, however, that the current division of responsibility for collection and disposal between the two levels of municipal government is not the most effective way. In this regazd, we would endorse the Consensus Report of the GTA Mayors and Chairs (March 17, 1997) which proposes a consolidation of the collection and disposal function in one level of government. Clarington would support the consolidation of the waste management functions at the regional level of govemment. 9 1258 Economic Development The current disjointed approach to mazketing the economic heart of the Canada has not been competitive nor efficient in attracting international business to the GTA. To counter this weakness, recent efforts have been made to develop a separate corporation funded by both the public and private sector. The Greater Toronto Mazketing Alliance should be operational by the end of 1997 with a mandate to attract new investment in the GTA from outside Ontario. A total of five municipal representatives (one from each region and Metro Toronto) would sit on the 16 member Board of Directors. The GTSB would be the logical agency assigned the responsibility for representing the municipal sector in the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance. The economic development efforts of this agency could be coordinated with the strategic planning role for infrastmcture in the GTA. Local municipalities would still have an important role in the economic development relating to existing businesses. Clarington supports a role for local municipalities in retaining and supporting existing businesses. Membership The Discussion Paper proposes two options for membership on the GTSB. The first is based on parity: each Region would elect one or two members. In this model each Region is treated as an equal partner. The second option is based on representation by population. Three different formulas were proposed resulting in either a Board of either 9, 11 or 14 members. Consistent with our position that the Board is not a level of government and will not be funding or delivering services (with the exception of GO Transit), there is no need for membership to be based on representation by population. Membership on the GTSB should be based on equal representation from each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. This representation should include the Regional Chairs and representatives of the local level of government in each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. Local representation could either be: • the Mayors of each constituent municipality; or • an equal number of local municipal representatives from each Region and Metro elected from the local municipalities. For example, each Region 10 1259 could have its Chair and four area municipal representatives resulting in a Board of 25 persons. The important aspect is that both upper-tier and lower-tier municipal representation (or its equivalent for the Metro Toronto Area) should be included in the decision-making process in order to ensure that the principles of accountability and equity aze achieved. There should be no direct election but municipal representation should be appointed from their own members. Notwithstanding the above, should the Special Advisor be convinced that representation by population is important in the membership on the Boazd, two matters should be incorporated into the Board structure: representation on the GTSB should include both regional and local municipal representation; and representation should be based on anticipated populations for 2011. Over the long term, the balance of population in the GTA will shift from Metro Toronto to the surrounding regions. The Metto Toronto Area currently represents approximately 50 % of the existing population but it is anticipated to account for only 36% of the 2011 population. To reflect the needs of the growth areas and to provide a stable membership structure for the next decade, membership should be based on the 2011 population forecast. The GTSB should also include Provincial and possibly Federal representation in order to be an effective forum for coordination between municipalities and the senior levels of government. Provincial representation could either be a single minister for the GTA or representatives of the key ministries such as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Transportation. Sub-Committees In order to fulfill its role effectively, asub-committee structure should be established to assist the Board. Sub-committees would be non-political representatives from the various municipalities and province who would undertake the detailed work to bring forwazd recommendations to the Boazd. In the case of GO Transit, this sub-committee should include representation from the service areas outside of the GTA. 12bO Initial Membership The Province should appoint the initial Chair of the GTSB. Following the 2000 elections, the Chair should be appointed by the full GTSB from among its members. The municipality having its member appointed as Chair would be able to replace its member. The Chair would be an ex-officio member and would not have a vote except in the situation of a tie vote. Financing The GTSB would have both administrative and service delivery costs. In no case should the GTSB have authority to tax directly. The Discussion Paper indicates that routine administrative costs could be shazed equally with each upper tier municipality paying 20 percent of the cost of the Board. Clarington would concur that this is appropriate providing that membership on the Boazd is also based on parity. If membership is based on a representation by population model, then administrative expenses should follow the same formula. Given Clazington's view that the GTSB should have a limited role in service delivery and is not a level of government, there would be limited financing required for service delivery. In the case of GO Transit, operating costs should be funded based on a combination of user fees and recovery of costs based on the level of service in that municipality. Capital costs should be determined based on assessment across the entire service area. In the case of the Greater Toronto Mazketing Alliance, the municipal shaze should be funded through the GTSB on the basis of equal shares for each regional./metropolitan azea. Municipal Restructuring The establishment of the GTSB in 1997 will set the stage for future changes to municipal administration in the GTA. While the government's vision for municipal reform in Metropolitan Toronto is clear, there is no equivalent vision for the rest of the GTA. It would appeaz that the Toronto model may be the future for the balance of the Regions in the GTA over time. The GTSB is set to be established to ~~ 1261 ~, gradually evolve into a broader mandate to deliver a variety of services currently being administered at the provincial or regional level. It must be made clear to municipalities that the introduction of the GTSB will not result in forced amalgamations or other jurisdictional changes within the GTA. Only locally driven and supported amalgamations supported by the majority of citizens in each municipality are acceptable. 13 12b2 ,,. ,. Recommendations: ' i; 'f.--r, ', ( I1~~'ti r ~~.,'; :~~'~~ "l ...~ iii 'i~Ii i;y ~I '(~~ VIII ~~1~~s~ni "~~`-w`1 i (}~-~ Ii ~i~ i 'i ~, __.~ 4i._..,,i_ - - e ~~m'' ~~~ (~ '! The Special Advisor on the Greater Toronto Services Board is requested to incorporate the following recommendations in his report: 1. The regional level of goverment be retained as the primary service delivery vehicle for major infrastructure requirements in the GTA 2. The GTSB proposed by the Province be limited to roles of long-term strategic planning for the GTA, co-ordination of cross-boundary servicing issues and dispute resolution. 3. A legislative framework which provides for an evolutionary process which would broaden the mandate of the GTSB over time to provide is not acceptable. The government's vision for the regions in the GTA should be clarified before the establishment of the Boazd. In particular, the government should clarify that the introduction of the GTSB will not result in forced amalgamations or other jurisdictional changes within the GTA which are not broadly supported and locally driven.. 4. The GTSB should have a strong mandate in planning and co-ordinating transit services in the GTA with the goal of developing a "seamless" transit system through the following: the GTSB would assume the responsibility for GO Transit; local transit systems would be consolidated at the regional level of government (including the TTC in Metro Toronto Area); the GTSB would be responsible for the coordination of local transit systems across regional boundaries. 5. The GTSB should have a strong mandate with respect to Economic Development with a mandate to attract business from outside of Ontario to the GTA. Local municipalities should have a complementary role in business retention and expansion. 6. The GTSB should have a limited role with respect to water and sewer services, arterial roads and waste management limited to strategic planning, coordination of cross- boundary services and dispute resolution. 14 12b3 ,. w .: 7. With the exception of the downloaded GO Transit service, the GTSB should not own any infrastructure. 8. Membership on the GTSB should be based on the following: • indirect election from existing municipal councils; • equal representation from each Region and the Metropolitan Toronto Area; • representation from local and regional municipalities within the GTA; and • representation from the Province in anon-voting capacity. 9. In the event that the Special Advisor deems that representation should be based on population, membership should be based on the following: • indirect election from existing municipal councils; • representation from local and regional municipalities within the GTA; and • representation should be based on anticipated populations for 2011. 10. The GTSB should have no authority to tax directly but would levy its costs to the regional and local municipalities directly. 11. The GTSB admhustrative costs should be shared on the same formula as the membership on the Board. 15 12b4 ~ , ~ ~~ ~ Y ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ \/ / ~ ~ ~ ~" ," ~._ n =~ J ~ as/h .. ~, / 1Q~ p t- ~-~ Q N u ~ ~~~ ~ c ...., ~ '~ F ~~ ~~ '~ g O R O r---------~ \ I ~ 'I ~~ ` i~ I \ I% - ~ \ e I' E~ I i i I ~ ~ . ;.' a~ t ~$ ~ I A I it I ~ ~ ~ ~ i L ••~•• tl y ~~ I ~ ~ m A~ / F \\ / \~ r ~ _ }1' L / Y ~ 9^ : iL>b _ 'wy~ 6L~_-,s 1~e Ial1R ~;15 1 I g d 9~ `wSC 1 LOT_.>u2~l~m .~P ~gg _~_~!$g IBLOCK d ~M~la i LOT O B ~ Z LOT 1) ~~I T ~,• t I -°~ a ~e -~i-~a ~~LO~F ~ia'"I $ i ~ i p,~~i I~T,~ lEa2j S LOT ~ 5^~.f-., _~ r ~• °~-_-_ A~ C~~~ i~q ~~ ~ wr a,~KS.'rw w: ~'a j e q ,f. _ d § I I y! ~,wn'v.®'ur 1 _y ~~~ ~! I 9t aft +5 (~a~ 3' ~` m z ffi-rt- a 6 ~ I I I a I ( N I.jV x 1 ~- li, un nwn~v !~ ~~+ k ~~~ ~ lad = L_~~t-'~ ~~# I-_~~~~ ~~ ; o T~ inT ~ z Lor as ~°' I E 'A I ~$ _~_ _ ~ 0'6~ ~ ~~ . O _-,LOi I~~I,1 O e ~-• Pun a ,M,m jP~ ~ po ~y _a]s_ t BLOCK r .,, ~,~ .~.. p= _ 1 p, p /nN~ LOr ,B ~ d ~ !~ d' ~~~., N a 8 ~ LOT° "°' 6 § I'1 r- I I 1~~ ~Y-1~'a/' I~ 3 LOT=~P 5 4 p Z ~yl'7af"`1I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~-= it x x L i I~rf+ I-INTI~~/ Lor_.. ° ~ _~ ~„~x~ ~ Lor`; i'°°'" ~ ,,,,J~omewrsr eFwc~~ macro L -µ ~ ~, N __~_~ ~_~.I II II ``\_. Lm~~a~"_-i €~yy~ °__"^e""`~~'°~_`"" t ca+ccssp ~- ~ 14 ,6. '- ~- r LOT Ii BflOKFN ~ 4i fMllf .- r, P ~ S _ - _ _ v<_ -____- __ _JL_ ••~~.._~ MflO .1[[OIYtACy B7MFFN [Ol5 JO ? lJ I M wv tis31'~. i:~.~:..~ I!~ xa.i~ ! ~i i~ !1l,P'PPP~PP9P~ ' ~~"PS 1 g ;~ i~~i t8~ y q :p,;P's3lly~ B~ ~'lei~~;d[e~t gg i~~ ~ i ~ 3' rP a 7 • do i j ~°li ! a' s Ba 71 e ~ ~ ~ r ~~a, a S 1~ ~ x~ }3 s ~~ a 1' y ~ °z