Loading...
Minibus fares - Transit Board D~ ~~~ MEMORANDUM October 25, 2004 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Transit Board Recommendation to Raise Minibus Fares Transit Manager Mark Munson is recommending that a public hearing be set for December 6, 2004 regarding the minibus fares. I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval. !1/¿~ (/~~ ,;f¿ {- Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM/jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Mark Munson, Transit Manager Bill Baum, Economic Development Director r," ':' .~ .. ' , , ' KeyLine Transit 2401 Central Avenue Dubuque. Iowa 52001-3302 (563) 589-4196 office (563) 589-4340 fax (563) 690-6678 TDD D~ ~~~ MEMORANDUM October 15, 2004 TO: FR: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager Mark Munson, Transit Manager MP\ ,.. Subject: Transit Board recommendation to raise Minibus fares PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to summarize the process followed by the Transit Board to recommend raising Minibus fares and to adopt other recommendations from the Human Rights ADA Paratransit Review conducted last summer by the Human Rights Department BACKGROUND On March 11,2004, the Transit Board listened to concerns expressed by the Transit Manager over difficulties the minibus staff were experiencing with capacity constraints on the minibus service. Specifically, staff were experiencing difficulty scheduling next-day service requests, late day appointments and reasonable response times on return rides. The capacity constraints were attributed to a 35% increase in minibus ridership over the last two years and a lack of capacity to expand service without additional funding. The board voted to recommend increases in the minibus fares from the current rate of $1.00 for all riders to $1.50 for ADA eligible riders and $3.00 for Age-only eligible riders and riders outside the ADA mandated service area of 0/.0 mile either side of the fixed route service. A public meeting was to be scheduled in May. Prior to the public meeting I visited with Human Rights Director Kelly Larson about conducting an internal review of the minibus service to ensure that there were no other areas of service deficiencies other than the capacity constraint issues. At the same time, a minibus patron lodged a complaint with the Human Rights office claiming the minibus service did not comply with the minimum ADA criteria for service. The ,""'ke People Integrity R"pomibility I=ovation Teamwock Transit Board agreed to postpone any decision regarding minibus fares until the review was complete. Over the months of July and August, Human Rights Director Kelly Larson and her staff conducted an extensive review of the minibus service as it related to the service criteria established for public transit services under the ADA. On September 9, 2004 the Transit Board received a final copy of the KeyLine Paratransit Review. DISCUSSION The summary and recommendations in the Review confirmed that the service was nearing capacity and that there were valid concerns over constraints to the service. 'Specifically, the areas of capacity concern involved denials for next day service requests, return ride times and wait times in excess of 1 hour and a lack of service for appointments scheduled in the late afternoon. The report also raised concerns over the number of Age-only eligible riders using the service and how that usage may be contributing to the capacity constraints experienced by ADA eligible riders. The Transit Board considered the following recommendations from the Paratransit Review to address capacity constraints: Recommendation Adopt stricter eligibility determinations that to be ADA para transit eligible a person must be unable to use the fixed route service. The ADA Review raised concerns about the number of age-only eligible people being allowed to use the minibus and how that may be impacting people with disabilities who cannot access the fixed route. To address this concern, the board recommended staff review the current ADA Eligibility Certification Application and revise the application wherever necessary so as to identify age- only eligible passengers who could access the fixed route service but instead use the minibus as a matter of convenience. The board also recommended that staff re-certify all minibus users and issue eligibility cards that distinguish age-only eligible riders from ADA eligible riders. Staff Reported on the use of priority practices by the Cedar Rapids transit service that prioritize ADA mandated rides over non-ADA rides wherever capacity constraint was an issue. The Cedar Rapids service also schedules non-ADA mandated rides outside the ADA service requirements to avoid causing constraints. Under this practice non-ADA mandated rides could be scheduled more than 1 hour before their requested time and could wait more than 1 hour for a return ride and could be denied service is no capacity is available for a particular request. The board recommended that staff adopt similar practices as used by the Cedar Rapids service as necessary. Recommendation Establish a time limit on eligibility and require recertification/ particularly for applicants who indicate the nature of their disability is temporary. The ADA Review recommended that the board impose a time limit on the period of eligibility once an applicant is approved. While the current system at KeyLine does impose time limits on applicants who indicate the nature of the disability is temporary, there has not been a re-certification of permanently disabled applicants since the certification process was implemented in 1997. The re- certification of all applicants for the purpose of distinguishing age-only eligible riders would accomplish this recommendation. Staff have been updating the ADA Eligibility Certification Application and will be re-certifying all current minibus riders over the next few months. Recommendation Utilize a comprehensive computer routing system to improve efficiency. The Transit Division has purchased a computer assisted software system from RouteMatch that has been in various stages of implementation over the past year. Difficulties arising out of the software upgrades themselves and constraints on staff time to fully deploy the software have delayed implementation. Recently RouteMatch has been awarded a statewide contract in Iowa and has assigned a full time staff person in Iowa City to provide support services to the software users. KeyLine dispatchers have been working with this staff person and have made significant progress in setting up the software with the minibus users and schedules. It is expected that the system will be live by the end of the year. While staff believe the software will bring efficiencies to the dispatch office with respect to preparation of schedules, record keeping, billing and reporting, RouteMatch staff have tested the software against the manual schedules created by KeyLine dispatch and found no significant optimization of schedules as a result of the computer assisted features. Recommendation Increase the number of buses available to the para transit service. The ADA Review felt it was "next to impossible" for the current number of staff and fleet to fully satisfy all the regulatory requirements as they relate to capacity constraint, and recommended decreasing ridership, increasing staff and fleet equipment or some combination of the foregoing to improve the system's capacity. With respect to increased service, the transit board felt a fare increase to ADA eligible riders would generate revenue necessary to expand the service during periods of peak demand. While the ADA allows transit systems to charge up to twice the regular fixed route fare, the board was sensitive to the limited incomes most of the minibus users and recommended a $0.50 increase to expand service and reduce capacity constraint. Staff stated the additional $31,OOOin revenue would fund approximately 1,500 hours of service that would significantly increase capacity during peak loads. Based on the current delivery of an average 4 rides per hour, 1,500 hours additional service would relieve 6,000 rides from the current system. Asked whether this increased capacity would completely address the issue of capacity constraint, staff felt stricter policies or practices on eligibility would still be necessary in addition to the expanded service to not only address immediate constraints but to also ensure that the demand would not quickly outgrow the expanded service. Recommendation Expand the number of subscription rides allowed to improve efficiency. In addition to stricter eligibility determinations, use of technology to improve capacity and an increase in the number of buses available to the paratransit service, the review recommended possible expansion of subscription service for regular and frequent users to improve capacity and efficiency. Subscription service, otherwise known as "standing orders" are the practice of permanently scheduling reoccurring ride requests so as to eliminate the need for a regular customer to call in reoccurring ride requests every two weeks excluding standing orders. The ADA limits riders from calling in ride requests any further than two weeks in advance to limit capacity constraint. The ADA also limits the practice of standing orders to 50% of the available schedules at any given time on the service when the service is experiencing capacity constraints. KeyLine currently has a maximum of 23% of the available schedules dedicated to standing orders and is still experiencing capacity constraint. For that reason staff did not recommend consideration for additional subscription service until after other measures to improve capacity have been proven to actually improve the service. Recommendation Assure that staff promptly and consistently checks answering machine and send passengers information on what information a voice message needs to contain to when leaving a message (name, address, time of appointment, destination, and return number). Current scheduling practices generate 3 phone calls to the dispatch center for every individual ride request. A rider calls initially to schedule their ride and again to confirm their pick up time the day before their appointment. The rider also calls to request a ride home when they are finished with their appointment. Excluding standing orders, the dispatch office receives upwards of 100,000 calls per year for the minibus service. The dispatch office has two telephone extensions and voice mail. The office is staffed with 1 dispatcher from 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 2 dispatchers on duty from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 1 dispatcher on duty from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Based on some of the comments received from the phone survey conducted by the Human Rights Department during the ADA review, the review cited instances where callers needed to make multiple attempts to reach a dispatcher because they did not wish to leave a message on the voice mail system. Callers were either uncomfortable or confused over what information they needed to leave on the voice mail when calling to schedule an appointment or requesting a return ride. Staff confirmed that callers often left insufficient information on the vOice mail system to identify the caller or schedule an appointment. Merrill Crawford has been informed of the phone and voice mail issues in the dispatch office and is working with staff to develop a holding system that would limit the number of calls going to voice mail when the dispatchers is on another call or using the two-way radio system. Staff are also incorporating information into the minibus guidelines that specifies what information a caller needs to leave when leaving a message on voice mail. Staff already access voice mail in between calls and radio dispatching and will continue to monitor the phone system for future improvements. Recommendation Log all phone calls to track ride denials. In order to adequately measure the effectiveness of any changes to the minibus service and to adequately track patterns of service constraint, the ADA Review recommended that staff log all instances where a ride request was denied or a ride schedule was negotiated outside the required ADA scheduling window of 1 hour before or 1 hour after the requested time. Staff have been informed of this practice and have begun logging all trip denials. The Transit Manager will maintain and monitor the logs for appropriate adjustments in the service. With the exception of increasing the number of subscription rides allowed, the Transit Board voted to accept the recommendations of the Paratransit Review that addressed capacity constraints and recommended a fare increase on the Paratransit service to fund the Review recommendation to increase the number of buses available to the paratransit service. Under the proposed changes, fares for all ADA eligible rides would increase from $1.00 to $1.50 and fares for all Age-only eligible rides (over age 65 with no disability) would increase from $1.00 to $3.00. The Transit Board scheduled a public meeting September 30, 2004 at 4: 15 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Carnegie Stout Public Library for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed fare increase and other recommendations of the Paratransit Review that address capacity constraints. This notice of the public meeting was published in the Telegraph Herald Wednesday September 15th and again on Sunday September 19th. The notice was also posted on all minibuses and directly mailed to agencies using the paratransit service. Approximately 350 copies of the notice were distributed to minibus patrons as they rode the service prior to the meeting. A press release was sent to the Telegraph Herald and to the local radio stations. The Telegraph Herald published an article on Monday September 27,2004 and interviews were conducted with local radio and television news. On Thursday September 30, 2004, the Dubuque Transit Trustee Board conducted the public meeting. All 5 Transit Board members and 35 citizens attended the meeting. The meeting opened with a brief Power Point presentation to explain why the board was considering a fare increase. At the end of the presentation comments received by phone prior to the meeting were read to the board. In addition, copies of letters sent to the transit office concerning the fare increase were provided to the board. Eight citizens presented comments to the Transit Board at the meeting. Four of the eight speakers at the public meeting were agency representatives from Stonehill Care Center, Sunnycrest Manor, Area Residential Care and Scenic Valley Area Agency on Aging. Comments could be summarized into two categories of concern. The first concern was confusion over application of the $3.00 fare and how the board would define eligibility for the $1.50 fare. The second concern was a general discomfort over paying for any fee increase on limited incomes. All parties agreed that the service was an excellent service to seniors and persons with disabilities and commended staff for their customer service. The Transit Board voted unanimously to recommend raising the fare from $1.00 to $1.50 across the board for all riders and to abandon the $3.00 fare proposed for Age-only eligible riders in favor of directing staff to prioritize service to ADA eligible riders over Age-only eligible rides as necessary to avoid capacity constraint. The board also abandoned the $3.00 proposed fare for riders outside the ADA mandatory service area because 0/.0 of a mile either side of the fixed route already covered the entire city limits. The $0.50 increase would be used to add service to address capacity constraints identified by staff and the ADA Review conducted by the Human Rights Department. The board also directed staff to re-certify all riders and issue eligibility cards distinguishing ADA eligible from Age-only eligible and Temporary or Seasonally eligible riders. Action Requested The Transit Board is requesting that the City Council approve the board's recommendation to raise the minibus fare from $1.00 to $1.50 and to set a time and place for public hearing on such proposed fare increase. Cc: Bill Baum, Economic Development Director - MINUTES DUBUQUE TRANSIT TRUSTEE BOARD PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER MINIBUS FARE INCREASE DATE: Thursday September 30, 2004 TIME: 2:30 P.M. PLACE: Carnegie Stout Public Library Auditorium, 11th & Bluff Streets, Dubuque, Iowa MEMBERS PRESENT: Bemis, Stedman, Lightcap, Enderson, Sand MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Munson, Transit Manager At 2:30 p.m. Transit Board Chair Harry Bemis called the public meeting to order and asked Transit Manager Mark Munson to present a staff presentation explaining the purpose of the meeting and the reasons for the fare increases being considered by the board. Munson provided a Power Point presentation explaining the purpose of the meeting, the ADA requirements for public transportation, the City's current ADA transit service, the reasons for the capacity constraints and the available options and recommendations to address the constraint issues. At the conclusion of the presentation Munson read a summary of public comments he had received over the phone from consumers in the two weeks prior to the public meeting. Munson Also provided Transit Board copies of written comments he had also received at KeyLine prior to the meeting. PubUcComments received by Dhone Drior to DubUc meetina: Deb Ostrander $1.50 fare doesn't beginto cover cost; very supportive of service improvements especially improvements in return ride times and late day service. Expressed some confusion as to applicability of $3.00 fare for Age-only eligible riders. Mrs. Fullbriaht Use to ride Green Line when it traveled on Rosemont but needed to switch to minibus dl,Je to distance and hills she would need to walk to get to nearest bus route on Pennsylvania. She is 84 years old and has difficulty breathing when walking that distance and on hills. She also has concerns she would be subject to $3.00 fare because she doesn't have a disability, just age. Caller unknown Caller is over age 65 and volunteers at Mercy Hospital. Uses fixed route wherever possible but not always able to use fixed route due to weather. If fare increased to $3.00 per ride she would not be able to afford to volunteer at Mercy Hospital. Dorothv Grant Expressed concern and confusion over who is subject to which fare increase. Has a health problem that prevents her from using fixed route but thought she may be subject to Age-only fare of $3.00. The board invited public comment from the approximately 35 people in attendance for the public meeting. Public Comments received at the public meetina: Geri Rea. Stonehill Adult Davcare Expressed confusion about how the board and the minibus service will define eligibility especially as it relates to ADA eligible versus Age-only eligible riders. Reminded board how most of their riders are on fixed incomes. Munson explained how eligibility is currently determined by answers to questions asked in the ADA Eligibility Certification application all minibus riders are required to complete. Application asks questions about how a person's mental or physical disability prevents them from accessing any part of the fixed route. Application also has a release of information section for those applications where additional information from a physician or counselor is necessary to make an eligibility determination. With respect to affordability, explained how the City of Dubuque would still have one of the lowest ADA fares in the state even if the fare was increased to $1.50. Marian Williams Wanted to know where there was a problem with capacity because she notice there was always available seating on the minibuses when she was riding. Asked several questions about whether the drivers were employed by the City or Project Concern, whether the service still provided transportation to Head Start students, and what was meant by stricter eligibility requirements? Noted seeing some passengers waiting 2 Y:. hours for a return ride. Wondered if trolley service could assist minibus and wanted to know how to qualify for ADA eligibility. Munson explained how the incident Ms. Williams was referring to when she saw a passenger waiting 2 Y:. hours for a return ride was an example of capacity constraint. Explained how the City owned the equipment, employed most of the drivers and managed the service since the service was brought in house from Project Concern two years ago. Explained there were no Head Start children riding on the minibus but that if any child was ADA eligible they would be eligible for the service. Referred to earlier explanation on eligibility given to Geri Rea and noted that the trolley, though accessible, was part of the fixed route system and not the minibus service. Beth Houseloa. Sunnvcrest Manor Wanted to know if expanded hours meant more hours of service during the day or if it meant the service would go beyond 6:00 p.m. Munson explained how the expanded hours would be within the current times of day mandated by the ADA for the minibus service. Those hours of service are based upon the current fixed route schedules of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. Marv Kav Patters. Scenic Vallev Area Aaencv on Aaina (SVAA) SV AA purchases tickets in bulk from a grant and that any fare increase would require them to shift funds from other programs for the elderly to pay for transportation as transportation is a critical service to the elderly. Noted that they would work to use the fixed route wherever possible. Jon Romain. Area Residential Care ARC represents about 200 people with disabilities and wanted to know what percentage the current ADA fares were of the actual cost for the service on both the minibus and fixed route and how those percentages compared for the respective services especially if the board approved increasing the minibus fares. Munson explained how this information was not available for the meeting but that the fares are the smallest portion of the funding for the cost of both the fixed route and paratransit service and that both services rely on federal, state and local support. Munson also explained how fixed route ADA fares by law are half the regular fixed route fare and that minibus ADA fares are up to the local system to establish and can be up to twice the regular fixed route fare. KeyLine currently charges only half the limit allowed for minibus ADA fares and even with the proposed increase to $1.50 would still be under the legal limit of twice the regular fixed route fare of $1.00. Deb Ostrander Wanted to know what the prospects were to expand the fixed routes. Munson explained how all fixed routes are almost completely stretched to their limits of 1 hour headways and that in most instances any expansion of the route would require a corresponding reduction of service somewhere else in the route. Sarah Davidson Explained how affordability was different for different people and that she could not afford an increase in minibus fares and would use the fixed route more if minibus fares were increased. Noted that the fixed route was extremely constrained with hour long headways and limited service areas and that increasing minibus fares to move people off minibus to fixed route could not be done without addressing constraints on the current fixed route system. Noted that the issue of capacity constraint on the minibus has been a problem for a long time. Asked if the fare increase would also affect subscription riders. Also suggested having a physician sign off on all applications. Munson explained how the fare increase as proposed would affect all users of the ADA minibus service including those being provided subscription service. Explained how KeyLine already refers certain applications to physicians for their recommendation and that staff should further investigate ADA regulations before requiring physician sign-off on all applications. Beverlv Kedlev Indicated she rode minibus to work to clean houses. Transit Board Chair Harry Bemis closed the public meeting and return the discussion to the Transit Board. George Enderson noted that the primary responsibility of the minibus service is to provide transit service to riders protected under the ADA. Enderson asked Munson whether the $1.50 fare increase would be enough to fund needed expansion of service. Munson indicated that the $0.50 increase would generate approximately 1,500 additional hours of service that would greatly reduce the current capacity constraint. Munson also noted that he was not able to speculate on how much additional revenue would be generated by increasing the fares to $3.00 for Age-only eligible riders as he did not know how many riders this would affect. Suggested staff proceed with re-certification to identify those Age-only riders currently using the service. Munson reminded the board how the City of Cedar Rapids require all riders to pay thé same fare and that ADA eligible rides are prioritized over non- ADA rides wherever necessary to stay in compliance with ADA requirements regarding capacity constraints. George Enderson motioned to increase minibus fares across the board to $1.50 and for staff to re-certify all riders and to adopt scheduling policies similar to Cedar Rapids regarding prioritization of ADA eligible ride requests. Motion seconded by Don Stedman and unanimously approved by the Transit Board. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Sands, Secretary Proposed KeyLine Minibus Service Improvements Public Meeting September 30, 2004 ----fHG--- Purpose of the Public Meeting Mart< Munson " Explain Clty's Public Trans~ "'lMlitment under the Americans With Disabilities Ad: " Identify capacity "'neerns on the Minibus Service " Identify alternatives to address "'neerns " Inform KeyUne Minibus riders of changes proposed by Trans~ Board to address "'neerns " ="t"~~~si~~~=%~'ß~the Coundi Service KeyLine Is Required To Provide under the American's With Disabilities Act " Service Area " Response TImes 01 Fares " Trip Purpose Restrictions " Hours and Days of Service " Capacity Constraints " Additional Service Service KeyLine Currently Provides Under the American's With Disabilities Act " Service Area - City Umits III ResPonse Times - 1 hour prior to appointment time; 30 minute pick-up WIndow " Fare - $1.00; haWaliowed under ""A III Trip Purpose Restrictions - None " Hours/Days Serviee - Same as fixed route "~~i~n~I~~d~~ \\1e~, late " Additional Service - Age-only eligibility Staff Concerns " Staff concerns over capacity & eligibility standards and concerns OVer ability to meet commitments to riders with disabilities " Resuits from a voluntary review of paratransit service by the Dubuque Human Rights Department iii FY 2002 minibus ridership 40,000 rides iii FY 2003 minibus ridership 46,000 rides iii FY 2004 minibus ridership 62,000 rides (35% increase) iii S bus peak FY 2002, 2003 & 2004 Staff Concerns Human Rights ADA Review " Service hours FY 2003 to FY 2004 outpaced ridership growth. " The effect of the growth slowed down performance and limited scheduling choices for dispatchers and riders " Voluntary review requested by Transit Manager May 2004 " Conducted by Human Rights Department summer 2004 " Primary areas of concem - Trip denials for next day service, late day appointments and return ride times Available Options/ Recom mendations Available Optio ns/ Recom me ndations " Trip purpose restrictions on Non-ADA rides " Cedar Rapids prioritized service for Non- ADA rides; same fare as ADA rides; scheduled as space and time permits; waiting lists; trip denial if necessary " Stricter eligibility requirements II Technology improvements II Increase number of buses in service " Increase subscription service II Improve communication systems/procedures II Log trip denials and monitor patterns Recommendations In Process Recommendations Pending .. Revised ADA eligibility Application .. Automated phone oILlons QJrrently being explored by city staff .. Deployment of computer assisted dispatch/scheduling software .. FIXed route infonnation provided to paratronsit requests on fixed route .. Policy and procedure for logging trip denials .. --toaugmentse<Yiœasneededtoaddress capoctty"""",,,nts .. !~i~':I.,~'r=~~~~ _mately 1.20tH,son additional ho¡ns senriœ "=æ~~~~"" .. ~""" _" - pa.."'mOt senriœ to -"""" 2 Public Input " State your name and address .. Please be mindful of time, as others are waiting to provide their comment " Try not to repeat what has previously been shared by other speakers 7ñank you 3 ...........- Dubuque Transit Trustee Board: You requested rider imput on the Keyline Minibus. All realize the value of the service, but raising a round trip ride from 2 dollars to six dollars is not only a shock but unaccep- table for most riders. Who determines as we got on or off the bus what a walker pays? Many not driving a car anymore take such transportation. Many have poor eyesight. Is that a physical handicap? Many use a cane for security. How do you define physical handicap for only $1.50 ride, just wheelchairs or walkers? What about the person ridin~ with a handicapped person. What does he or she pay? I am sure you will have many questioning the costs proposed and I think $1.50 for all riders would be simpler and a sufficient raise at this' time for all. We all appreciate the city service and the scheduled bus routes, while available, are not as valuable for seniors, most years past age 65, always walking blocks for a bus., no help and weather concitions a concern. Let us divert funds for the Keyline minibus sevice as they have been for many years. Yours truly, ~~ ~r ,.Æ¡!- á( OJ é? 0 CI f . f£j " D~ :?r < ~ . '" ' ,.t", -- ;~ ~,~~ b- ~ t - ,/JMj,,'~,> ""'(ói,' ~,,~, ' ¡f~" "," , ;t;;~ , tb, j_~Jk,,"1dv ~'" " ~~ , ",' ~tl~ 11 ,..I. J ' ~ f", , ", , ,ÅØ - ~ ~ ~ ..¿¿; , ~,.~~,'/\L,/,',".r,'~, ~,'i~, , ~'Á/ dot.4-4o-fSU UJl ' ,,-¿,,~if,',~;¡~ ßo/~S;¿¡.d,J, ' ~' \.L ,,(b ~, ~, ,n, "/;I;.II(1<~",,.¿p>~ ~¿~h,w ~~/'¡¿£ , '" ~-~ ~A;l1:;)~ ~" ' ,_.,_U/..d,,;;.J¡,~, '~,' ,~;2t).J.. ~.L: ,,' ~ /í']:.~r ~ :j~¿~hY-A~ ' '~~' , '., .~, ,'"l . ~ ,~,'. -, "'Vþ"';:'¡', .~ '~', .'-'-'" '.. ' ", , : \;Q.'.';Ldh~~" . ,', . ", ,~""",gd<?ilj~, r""",P-rL,,' .'IW;t,.' ",3,éJ",.;1,tJ"/J,(Jf,"'-'" . \.$-, ~ ' ",U , ß/,.. ~' ,-" ~ J " I"'I"',",',' ':',tb~" ,r",;£i£,',"~,',j:{,'/',.,W;1U', ".'Z:. ,',,' J.. I' ,"". '. ,~',~ ' /~~~'~ ',-dv/~' ~,. "I' rt#£~~~)k'-!1L ~"..,.,L~~,~",':;P,"."'~.'..', ~JS.,.'.',.) ~~~-¿-~~~/,~~~ " ,~ ';6) , ;:;z:x; iJr ~~ " ~~;¡ttL¡j.d ~ulf~". , ,~) @ "^""'"" .."" '"< <0> ... CÓ~'I~Æ/w~fZl. . . .~'.~...".".iv,,¡W~.,.....Ii':;"'."',~.',,',..,,' ';#",~,,'.'¿f.,':.l,'."~ , ,~~ ~ J¡; ~~Þ4I . ,- _A'~' '~Á t[,' 'I ',' , Þ,",'~""""',,~"'~',',~' ,:I.,'-,J ~,'~/ , $. , ' ,,- -- I.-r-f-L 1-" ~ , " ~~ '" ~ rh ',' "" 0 , ,'~,.,Ò,~,.".',-h"'/~'f),,,,'~',~,'J:,~',',' ~ ,A.1J~1 ~ ,::ø."'ß::Þ<,, ",: ¿',,',\v::, I' 'f) ,', ,', .',' ,,':dø~' "p;:" : ' ,- . ~ ~ u/ A .:.ft:f:!tl:;¡ . '~"',',"',,-.,.',."".,',' "JI/"'J""",~,".",,',,,¿,,,~,"""f.'"" ' '. ,~ ~~ ~ .' " "~'~~" ' " , " . I {, ,J, ,- , '/ "", ,,' ~" ..ÞW" ',;{;l!ô, ' " (,"~ " ,~/,,', 'I , ~",,~, ~ " ' '., 0 ,'~ ,"', r,o, I ,'" "~':IJ;,,:,,, ,ifr, "J4/",:\..Í."J~,.",~" ., . ~/- VJ~ ,,/h ""~",<":"'~",,"~'~", ,',,',,',,", Y,.',.',' --k-"?t'~,,',~T--, ", ":" 'CiÛ-- ,'," , .Á/) ~ ì--<- fA.... . " 'PIJ.lI"..~~~"r,~,.,\,:,,',",',""" ,,',',", ','" , "rr" ',' ",<}/~, . 0 , " , . . ' " , ' ,. ' -' - ~~ [þ~~/'&ù~~ ~<Ú~F~~~~ ~ {¡,VQÙ ó-AU fu ~~.i;JJJ ~ ~Þ~~ffir~ IJ ~~ :f} ~ æJu ~ ~ ~~( ~hð..J~~ ~~r'~~&:~ [,y ~4~/.3d-~ ~~~, ~ ",. ". . 'ff'~ )?~ ;;JáD 1 LJ ~ ~:'-b ?' '> 50;;'- :/~J,d-