Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 03.25.2014 MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP MARCH 25, 2014 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at 6:30 p.m. on March 25, 2014. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Emelie Eaton _x_ Doug Poehls x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr _x_ Scot Stokes x Chuck Dickerson x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Jensen, CAO Monica Plecker, Planning Director Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering Gary Colley, Building Official Public Input (three- minute limit): There was no public input. General items There were none. Executive Review: • Resolution — Great West Engineering, Amendment No. 1 to Task Order No. 29 to write TSEP and DNRC grants o Discussion — Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) Public Hearing Chad Hanson stated that Great West Engineering is wrapping up the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) on the Water System, so an amendment was requested for them to prepare Treasure State Endowment Program and DNRC Grants related to the PER. The actual project plan for the grant monies will be determined after discussions of the PER about prioritization and public input is received at the two public hearings. The fmal project would be related to the water system. TSEP Grants are available for $500,000, $625,000 or $750,000, depending on the average residential rate compared to the target rate. Crystal Bennett will present the information at next Tuesday's public hearing. The Department of Natural Resources increased the grants from $100,000 to $125,000 this year and this grant could also be used in conjunction with the project. In the past, the City of Laurel has been awarded both TSEP and DNRC grants for water and wastewater projects. Two public hearings are scheduled on April 1S and 15 Next Tuesday, Great West will present the PER, give a summary of the deficiencies they found in the system, storage, distribution, and the water treatment plant, and then give the recommended solutions to address each of those deficiencies in the different areas, preliminary cost estimates, and impacts to rates. Chad thinks that the sedimentation basins at the treatment plant will be the highest priority, but some collection system storage is also Council Workshop Minutes of March 25, 2014 needed. Crystal, Susan and Chad will attend the public hearing to present the findings. After that, there will be two weeks of comment, the council's review, and another public hearing to present the actual project that will be included in the grant applications. Heidi mentioned that, when staff originally started working on the "small projects" in the city over a year and a half ago, Chad, the former mayor, Kurt and Heidi developed the timeline that is still written on the board in the conference area and those deadlines have been met. Staff is excited to get the PER done, to apply for the grants, and to start and continue working on the small projects. • Resolution — Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Williams Brothers Construction for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Chad stated that Change Order No. 1 for the contract with Williams Brothers at the Wastewater Treatment Plant is a list of six minor changes to the project that started in September. Three of the pumps used to recycle activated sludge required larger VFD's, at an increased cost of $4,665.36. The hand valves needed power to them to run the solenoid, which cost an additional $4,825.74. The contractor and the electrician approached the engineers with a proposal to relocate the new switchgear and CT panel, which resulted in a credit of $7,546.11. Staff at the plant asked if the contractor could move the composite sampler inside the UV building, and that was done at no charge. When the engineers got the actual submittal on the generator and the actual loads and weights, they redesigned and reduced the size of the generator pad, which resulted in a credit of $8,295.07. Staff wanted the generator pad moved to the west, adjacent to the parking lot for ease in fueling and snow removal. It cost $1,821.21 to move it because of additional pavement and restoration. Chad stated that the bottom line is a $4,528.85 credit to the city, so it actually reduced the contract price. He has been impressed with Williams Brothers and their working relationship with the engineers and the city throughout this project. There was a question and brief discussion regarding the need for a change order to install a disposal site for the septic haulers. Chad stated that Great West is working on a cost estimate and trying to get some background information for a disposal site. This would require an amendment to Great West's contract, as they have to design the site and get approval from DEQ. Once DEQ has approved, he recommends that the city negotiate a change order with Williams Brothers. • Ordinance — Fence heights Monica mentioned that the council previously had questions specifically about language requiring fences to be six inches inside the property line. At the recommendation of the city attorney, the language has been amended to say that "fences shall be constructed on private property." It says plainly that the fence needs to be constructed on private property but it does not require the 12 -inch gap. Monica stated that there had also been questions about possible application changes for property owners that would like to maintain a fence together. The city attorney highly suggested that no changes be made to the application to allow any sort of agreement between property owners, because that is outside the scope of what the city does. If personal agreements need to be filed, it is a civil issue and does not need to be brought into the city. Stating that fences shall be constructed on private property alleviates the one -foot buffer that was created by the previous language and still makes it clear that whatever is built needs to be on private property. Monica stated that those were the two items of concern during the council's previous discussion. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of March 25, 2014 In reviewing the proposed ordinance, some language was confusing. Monica read letter D. on page 2: "Side yard adjacent to street fences. If the property abuts an alley, a fence may be erected along the side yard adjacent to the street and maintained up to six feet (6) from the rear of the dwelling to the alley as well as along the alley. Clear vision at alley shall apply." This is where the major change came from. As an example, the Zimmerman fence would now be allowed because that property is a side adjacent to a street and it does abut an alley, but it still requires clear vision. Monica stated that Gary did a great job of working on this, and she encouraged the council to ask him any questions about the permitting process or specifics about what is or is not allowed. Monica stated that the Planning Board reviewed the fence ordinance again at its March 6 meeting and unanimously recommended the changes to the council. There was discussion regarding some issues with existing fences, the difficulty to specify everything in the ordinance, and the importance of the clear vision zone. This ordinance will become effective thirty days after council adoption and existing fences will be grandfathered in. • Speed Zone Study — Railroad Street & Shay Road Heidi explained that the council reviewed the speed zone study last October and the State recently asked for comments from the City of Laurel. A copy of the diagram showing the speed limit changes is attached to these minutes. There was discussion regarding the proposed changes for the speed limits on West Railroad Street by South Pond. Chuck stated that he was impressed with how this was done, as he has been trying for five years to get the County Commissioners to address the speed limits on Buffalo Trail Road and Airport Road. Bruce stated that he did not see an issue with the changes, as the parking lot provides a buffer area between the park and the road. • Council Issues: o Ex parte communication on council agenda (Chuck Dickerson) The council received copies of a memorandum from the city attorney regarding ex parte communication, and a copy is attached to these minutes. Chuck stated that the memo indicated that ex parte communication occurs when a council member has a discussion with an individual regarding items before the council, but it did not address communication between council members and/or the mayor. He questioned if that would also be ex parte communication that should be disclosed prior to scheduled matters. Mayor Mace understands that it would not, as there would be opportunity for council discussion prior to a vote. If a council member has communication when other council members are not present, that is ex parte communication and must be disclosed. Mayor Mace stated that the item would be added to the council agenda in the correct place. o Lease Task Force update Heidi gave an update on the project in city hall. Servpro, the contractor that is working on the flooding restoration in the city hall building, did the original assessment of the buildings at Riverside Park. Since she met with Steve Hanlin, the owner of Servpro, his business has expanded and he now 3 Council Workshop Minutes of March 25, 2014 has a general contractor on staff. After she called Servpro to inform them of the potential environmental hazards with the leaking roof on city hall, he brought his contractor and Heidi explained the difficulties in Riverside Park and that no contractors wanted to touch those buildings. Servpro has agreed to rank the buildings in Riverside Park as to priority, based on the damage inside and the feasibility for reconstruction at an affordable rate. They will provide an estimate for the construction, in addition to the estimate already received for the extraction of the environmental hazards from the buildings. Heidi will then compile the estimates and pictures of the buildings into a presentation for the council. Heidi explained that the plastic material was put up in the conference room and the jury box because the carpet was ruined from the stagnant water and the rust in the water. The glue under the carpet is old and contains an asbestos material. It was evaluated by an asbestos company in the last two weeks. There was no asbestos in the walls. As soon as the carpet is ripped up, the contractor will start tearing into the walls. The conference room and jury box will be done first, followed by the office space occupied by the clerk/treasurer and the council secretary. Heidi asked Servpro to provide estimates for the Riverside Park buildings that include not working on some buildings right now and even permanently sealing off some buildings. The city cannot tear down the buildings because of the environmental hazards in those buildings. They would have to be torn down by a company that is certified in that sort of excavation. Heidi explained that the city signed a contract with Residential Roofing to replace the roof on city hall. Residential Roofing proposed a roofing solution that actually puts insulation on top of the roof, so a false ceiling would not be needed inside if we choose not to. MMIA will not pay for the roof itself, as it was deemed to be neglect and there was no record of the last time anything had been done to the roof. MMIA will pay for some of the repairs inside the building. The roofing contractor was going to start on the roof this week, but it snowed on Monday and more precipitation is in the forecast. The Budget /Finance Committee approved the contract last Tuesday and there was already money in the budget. Doug asked regarding removal of the siren from the city hall roof. He explained that the Emergency Services Committee discussed two options for the siren, both of which require removing the siren from the city hall building. The first option is to put the siren on a tower behind the Chamber building in Fireman's Park, which would be a central location for the siren. People are used to the siren going off downtown and it does have some historical value, as it has been around over 50 years. The second option is to check with the County to see if the city could tie into the emergency siren that is located on the north side of Thomson Park in the northwest corner behind the Dodgers' center field. Doug stated that the committee agreed that the fire siren needs to be removed from the roof. Doug explained the concern regarding a secondary callout for firemen while the siren is not functional. One available option is to text the firemen's cell phones via Microsoft Outlook. The chief of police does not think this is a long -term solution because it takes too long for the dispatchers to type a message when the phones are ringing, but it could be an interim option until the siren is installed. Heidi will contact the contractors regarding removing the siren from the roof. The Emergency Services Committee will meet again on April 21' to recommend the best option to the city council for consideration. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of March 25, 2014 o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event Heidi stated that staff is still reviewing the three alternatives and working on combining two alternatives. Staff has had some discussions regarding making sure that the city's 25 percent match is available at the State level. The city is working to get this project done on the anticipated schedule developed by Great West Engineering. Tom stated that one of the possible solutions was going three miles upstream and there was some attractiveness to that, especially because of the amount of head pressure due to the drop in elevation to the plant from the intake. He asked if the screens are blown out from time to time by pushing water back out through them. Chad explained that air is used to backwash and scour the screens. If the city chooses the alternative to move the intake three miles upstream across from the Canyon Creek intake, it would be necessary to build a building on site with a blower system and to install controls that will connect the water treatment plant so they know what is going on. MDT's proposed new highway route goes right up the bluff above there, so if it was all on the south side of the river, it would be easy access from the new highway versus going across country to get down to it in inclement weather. A scouring system and a small building with the blowers and controls would have to be installed. Other items There were none. Review of draft council agenda for April 1, 2014 • Public hearing: Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) Attendance at the April 1, 2014 council meeting All council members present will attend. Announcements Tom thanked whoever made the new badges with the new city logo. The council workshop adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /' 6--,. Cindy Allen Council Secretary NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 5 Elk River LAW O F F I C E P.L Majel M. Russell • Sam S. Painter • Georgette H. Boggle MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mace and City Council From: Sam S. Painter, Civil City Attorney , Date: March 24, 2014 Re: Ex parte communication on Regular Council Agendas As I understand the request, one or more Council members are interested in placing ex parte communication as a regular Agenda Item for meetings. Prior to my recommendation, I want everyone to understand exactly what constitutes ex parte communication, and how elected leaders should attempt to avoid it. Montana law does not specifically define ex parte communication by statute. However, based on a number of sources, ex parte communication is simply defined as: "A private communication between a decision maker and an individual or entity concerning an issue that is before the decision maker." In order to constitute an ex parte communication, there has to be a private communication between a council member and an individual. Secondly, the private communication must be about an issue currently before the council for a decision. If either of these elements are lacking, the communication does not constitute ex parte communication warranting a disclosure. Alternatively, if an ex parte communication has taken place, the individual council member must disclose, prior to the discussion and vote on the decision item, who he /she met with, and the substance of the private communication. If he /she received documents, the documents must be disclosed and provided to the remaining council and made available to the public. Finally, if the ex parte communication creates serious or substantial doubt as to the impartiality of the council member, he /she should remove him/her self from the discussion and vote on the decision item. Council members who have concerns with a potential ex parte communication should consult the Mayor, CAO or City Attorney prior to the meeting for a determination how to best proceed. In regard to procedure, I would suggest the Council consider adding "Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications" as the first item under scheduled matters. A council member could disclose his/her ex parte communication regarding a decision item prior to the actual council decision. Secondly, I would recommend an Ex Parte Folder be created and made available to the public at each meeting, with the Council Agendas. Documents obtained through ex parte communications could be copied and available for public scrutiny. Finally, if a public hearing is scheduled, the Mayor upon opening the public hearing could ask if a council member needs to disclose an ex parte communication regarding the issue before the council. A council member could then disclose the communication as part of the public record prior to the decision. I have included a proposed agenda for the Council's consideration and use. As always, the best approach is to avoid discussing decision items in private. Encourage individuals who want to discuss decision items in private to attend the council meeting to provide the information to the entire council for their consideration. If the individual is unable to attend the meeting, suggest he /she provide a written statement for the entire council. 145 Grand Avenue, Suite #5 • P.O. Box 928 • Billings, Montana 59103 Telephone: (406) 259 -8611 • Facsimile: (406) 259 -3251 elkriverlaw @elkriverlaw.com www.elkriverlaw.com M Montana Department of Transportation Michael T. Tooley, Director Steve Bullock, Governor - Billings District Office 424 Morey Street PO Box 20437 Billings, MT 59104 -0437 October 2, 2013 City of Laurel PO Box 10 Laurel, MT 59044 Subject: Speed Limit Recommendations Railroad St & Shay Rd/ U6902 Laurel The Department has completed a speed zone study at the subject location. Attached is the study report and a recommendation for the speed zones through the subject location; ready for presentation to the Montana Transportation Committee for approval. Please review the report and reply in writing that the County concurs or does not concur. The new speed zone recommendations must be accepted or rejected as a whole. If the County chooses to reject the new speed limit recommendation, The Department will take no further action and the roadway will retain its existing speed limits as approved by previous Commissions and current State law. If the County approves the recommendation but desires modifications, the County may lobby the Transportation Commission to modify the recommendations at the meeting of the Commission. The District will notify the County of the date, time and location of the Commission meeting. We would appreciate all written comments be made within 60 days of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact District traffic, Stan Jonutis, at 657 -0240. Respectfully, . Ste an S � , .E. District Administrator Billings Attachment: Speed zone study 03U6902szdr:smj copies: Traffic File Phone: (406) 252 -4138 An Equal Opportunity Employer TTY: (800) 335 - 7592 Toll—free: (888) 863 -8465 Internet: www.mdt.state.us FAX.' (406) 256 -6487 ` I Montana Department of Tr rnV?fir tior►:i _; PO Box 201001 :;, Helena, MT 596200001 Memorandum To: Stefan Streeter, P.E. - Billings District Administrator From:QDanielle C. Bolan, P.E. - Traffic Operations Engineer Date: September 19, 2013 Subject: Speed Limit Recommendation Railroad St. & Shay Rd. (U -6902) Please present the following information to both the city of Laurel and Yellowstone County officials for review and comment. Inform them that we would prefer to receive all comments in writing within the next sixty days. Their comments along with the Department's final recommendations will be presented to the Montana Transportation Commission for action. This investigation was prompted at the request of the City of Laurel. There are no previous speed limit investigations or an approved special speed limit configuration on record for this route. Within the Laurel Urban area Railroad Street and Shay Road are designated as Federal -aid Urban Route 6902. This route is under the maintenance of both the City of Laurel and Yellowstone County. Urban route 6902 (Railroad St.) begins at an intersection with US 212/310 and continues west along the south side of the Montana Rail Link railroad 1.65 - miles. At this point U -6902 turns south and continues along Shay Road for approximately 1 /2 -mile where the "urban route" designation ends. Average annual daily traffic volume ranges from 1,260 within the city of Laurel to 590 along Shay Road. This roadway was constructed by city and county forces in 1945 and improved in 1969. Majority of the typical section consists of two 12 -foot travel lanes with no surfaced shoulder area. The first portion of the route from the intersection with US 212/310 to the intersection with 8th Avenue South is located within the City of Laurel. The adjacent side culture in this area consists of residences along the south side of the roadway and railroad tracks parallel to the north. West of the intersection with 5th Avenue there is a ready -mix plant located along the north side of Railroad Street. Railroad Street is also under stop sign control at the intersection with 5th Avenue. West of 8th Avenue South the adjacent roadside is primarily undeveloped consisting of agricultural land with a few scatted nearby and adjacent residences. There are adjoining S- curves in the alignment on each side of the 1 -90 underpass. Ball -bank studies were conducted along this segment. The comfortable speed threshold based on a 12- degree ball -bank reading is 45 mph. Further west at the alignment change from Railroad Street to Shay Road the comfortable travel speed is 20 mph. Crash History Crash history was reviewed for a three year period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. Seven crashes were reported within the study area. Crash rate is 3.90 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. Five of the seven crashes occurred within the urban district along Railroad Street. The remaining two crashes were unrelated with one (single vehicle) rollover crash occurring near the 1 -90 underpass, and the other (multiple vehicle) crash was located at the intersection of the Frank Road at the end of the urban route designation. Travel Speeds Automatic traffic counters were used to sample directional travel speeds at ten locations to develop a speed profile of the route (see straight -line diagram). Location 85th % Speed 10 mph Pace & Percentac Between the Railroad X -ings 27 mph Westbound (18 mph - 28 mph) 79% 25 mph Speed Zone 27 mph Eastbound (18 mph - 28 mph) 80% 100' West of Woodland Ave - 27 mph Westbound (18 mph - 28 mph) 81% 25 mph Speed Zone 27 mph Eastbound (18 mph - 28 mph) 79% 100' West of Durland Avenue 28 mph Westbound (21 mph - 31 mph) 81% 25 mph Speed Zone 28 mph Eastbound (18 mph - 28 mph) 81% 500' West of South 8th Avenue 44 mph Westbound (36 mph - 46 mph) 67% 40 mph Speed Zone 46 mph Eastbound (36 mph - 46 mph) 61% 1,000' West of South 8th Avenue 49 mph Westbound (39 mph - 49 mph) 64% 40 mph Speed Zone 50 mph Eastbound (39 mph - 49 mph) 57% Eastside of the 1 -90 Overpass 50 mph Westbound (39 mph - 49 mph) 64% _ 60 mph Speed Zone 51 mph Eastbound (39 mph - 49 mph) 53% 700' West of the 1 -90 Overpass 53 mph Westbound (42 mph - 52 mph) 65% 60 mph Speed Zone 58 mph Eastbound (48 mph - 58 mph) 53% 1,300' East of Shay Road 59 mph Westbound (48 mph - 58 mph) 56% 60 mph Speed Zone 59 mph Eastbound (48 mph - 58 mph) 55% 400' East of Shay Road 49 mph Westbound (39 mph - 49 mph) 69% 60 mph Speed Zone 44 mph Eastbound (33 mph - 43 mph) 71% 500' South of Railroad St. 54 mph Westbound (45 mph - 55 mph) 60% 60 mph Speed Zone 55 mph Eastbound (45 mph - 55 mph) 55% 400' North of Frank Road 56 mph Westbound (48 mph - 58 mph) 55% 60 mph Speed Zone 61 mph Eastbound (51 mph - 61 mph) 49% Conclusions and Recommendations The statutory 25 mph speed limit within Laurel is commensurate with both the adjacent residential development and traffic operation. No change along this portion of the study area is recommended. West of the intersection with 8th Avenue there is definite support for a special speed limit configuration. We identified areas in which the 40 mph speed limit was low and the 60 mph speed limit was high for the operational characteristics identified within the boundaries of each zone. We recommend the following 35 mph - 45 mph - 55 mph speed limit configuration to better align the speed limits with the travel speeds and other operational characteristics of the roadway. A 35 mph speed limit beginning at station 30 +00 adjacent to the intersection with 8th Avenue South and continuing west to station 37 +00, an approximate distance of 700 feet. A 45 mph speed limit beginning at station 37 +00 and continuing west to station 60 +00, an approximate distance of 2,300 feet. A 55 mph speed limit beginning at station 60 +00 and continuing to the end of the "urban route" designation at the intersection with Frank Road, an approximate distance of 5,100 feet. Only the above described speed zones under the jurisdiction of Yellowstone County require approval by the Montana Transportation Commission. The 25 mph speed limit within the city of Laurel is established by state statute, as the segment it encompasses is an urban district by definition. The W1-5 "winding road" warning sign panels for the s- curves on either side of the 1 -90 underpass need to be switched with one another in order for the "winding road" symbol to reflect the actual curves in the roadway, as there are "right" and "left" versions of this warning sign. DCB:DRB:TRF:u- 6902_rpt attachments copies R.A. Peterson D.R. Bailey E -file s REF !EI? 8 d :$ s -- N W CJ's 6 K 1:- - o s i O O O O O ` Cuuui■■ii 11111111111111111111 ■ ■ ■ ■■ — 9 0 4 00 I■iil■1�1 1 4 111L11I■ I . ■■■ ■,m. ■ 1 ■■ . o - 1111.111 C ■I.., ■ m 1 11111111111 11111111.11111 C111111T CC 00'00 I uhIt : ■■ ....■� ■ C .. A , i ,,„111111111111111111‘11 111111111111011 :: - -_ � N� e I£ r. 11 1 111 I m T,: 1::® 110100 L /1 :: ®■■■■■.■. 1111111 7Mt ! i i i i i u■1 111 1 11111111111111111111 uC 11 u ® ■ ■u■ ■C■■ 1 11111■ ..11 111 :: 111 uuImu1u■�I : ■■■ ®C■ ■■ 11111 ::: ■ III INN ■1111 11 ::::... NONUNION ■.CCC.■.■ 3 a S I� m� ! ■ ' ° v � =_am - g ° �� ° o $ � � °� µ ago° — �- o R ^ µ m m 0 O O p O 2 a N T C ■ ■M■■ —4.— _° ■ ■■■ 1111■ ■■■■■■■■ 1■ ■■■i ■ l I Interstate 90 � ° — 4— i _' 0{00 N ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ any {svlj*•5 - -- — — � _ - -- ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ) 9 _ _ du p.. u �� , ■■ ■■1I1 ) 0{00 ■■■■■IN■ � �1 � ■M■ - I � II■■ 1111■■ 1■■■■M11MM1 11■ 111101 10101111111 ° II ■ 1111■ s 0: . 1 111 1 111. ■ _ ill Milli m - ��a r _ ._ 1■■■■111111 m 1 ' r - ! . _-- ■■■ ■M - ■I ■ ■ _ E ®. Ao{o° ■111 1 111■■ = m 7- ■MMMM I — ' 011®■■ ■■11■ m 1111111111 , L ° - Irr 0itch ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 I ® Mill ■MM m woodland Ave MM � ! 1 11 ■■ ■■1111 _ - 1111111111 m _ 0.xlleyr,(y ■ ■ ■ ■■11 11111111111111 m ■ a 111111111111 ■1111 M ■R1MM ■MMM■ ®_ Yellowstone Ave 11111111111111 — ■l■■■ ■I ■ U. ®11■■■ _ j ■ I 11 MMM1ll _ _ u ® w�� _■■1111 20f 00 { lo ■11 111.111 m w _ 1111111 111 II 1 I I I m I I Ourland Ave 1M M `I �I ! I I 1111 ::: ml� I I t = Alley I ;m° 1 1■i■ ■ ■■■ { NI 11 :®■. m �� m � � - , u ioresi Ave M _ 11111111111111 ■■■ �■ _ - m 11111 m ,_ ■■. ., ■ M I u uui M■■■M esi Ave MMr I `- = SPEED Y LIMIT 111111iiill , 80 {00 Fw JO{00 e , � 11111111111 v. \ 3NOtl f v e 'LLB , wOntll ■■■ ■ - 7, m imp - T -.-- il ■ I I _ ■ 1%. ■ ■MGM■ a ■ ■ ■ I O _ N• ' _ .... 1111111111 1 P ■■■■11 ■■ m a 1111 ■Ix:11■ t i — g ■ t a Icii s ` va Aa 1 ■■ ■ " ■■ ■ i 1111111111 _� � ....At 1111 ■ MM■, MINI w _ � T W � ■■M■■M ° 40 {00 ■ -�1 ®1111 .:: M:: M � = � � IHiIflI. ■ 1 ■ ■ :::: ■■■ W. ■ '■ MI I. 1■ ■■■ , ,.■■■ c ®1■ ■ .11 hh11001 1 h 11111 ill ! w T F. a t�.