HomeMy WebLinkAboutSLC Citizen's Budget Committee 4-17-15ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMITTEE
April 17, 2015
7:30 a.m.
0
:01- • • • •
• -••
1. Call to Order — Ron Knaggs, Chair
2. Public Comment
3. Approval of March 20, 2015 Minutes
4. Review of Major Budget Drivers
o Staffing levels by Department
o Budget Composition:
• Salary and Wages - Impact of wage increases
• Health Insurance Premiums and Other Benefits
• Operating Expenses - Fixed costs and other major
expense items
1. Informal BOCC Meeting Update
2. Other Issues
3. Adjournment
Members: Jane Bachelor
Ed Lounds
Patrick Campion
Jay McBee
James Clasby
Stephanie Morgan
John Culverhouse
Gwen Morris
William Donovan
Craig Mundt
Carl Hensley
Richard Pancoast
Ron Knaggs, Chair
Steve Weaver
Daniel Kurek, Vice Chair
-50
-2,1
m
r
(U
t:
U rl
c
cli <
L
E
E
—C:
U)
49
LL-
2
CL
In
LO "2 U') u Lo Lr) Lo U) Ul) V) U') Lo Ln Lf) ;Lo if)
!7
iz
C14
I CY)
I ce)
to
W
C,
LO
L,)
17L
LL
r
r
0 i a c
0
c
0 LL
.0)
EL
IE i.c:
LL
ILL
LL
L.L
.......... ---- - -
. ............ ...
...........
.......
Lr)
Lf) LO
F
Fz F:
F
c
z
C14 '04
Lo
�N
I
2
'n C',
m
c
0
r
o
c
'o
a a) (1) i-
o
c
0
a
i 0 C:
0
i
0 10
im
0
0
0
0 E
co
C
E>
i>
w
a
m
CL
0
aLu
�s Ei
m
LU
IQ
2
E I
a
(D
i E
o
I o I
Ci
0
1
.2
l
i
(D
'n
10
CF)
as
ll
o
1
E
Jq
4)
42)
�LL
iL,
a)
j=
E'
m
.0.
32
1 0
-01
E
cn
0
i.0
1
0
IQ. ; i
RE a)
a
M
E
15
m
E
�LL
I 0
E
i Eo
W
E
a)
0
1 1 (D
��5 �;L
i.E
=0
.0
l.r
i (U
led
cm E
8-
CD
a) 0
a)
I:ta,
!C)
4)
cc
76 10
U) I.—
(D
E
u)
0 It 0
E l
0
CL
1")
r
�.2
0
10-
0.
0
4c)
1>
C,
r on
c
N
i
o
0
0 (a i'(5
1-E Ir-
I M I--
(D
!CL
-0
5 c
0
cu
-a.
1 0
"0
co 0
a.
cm C)
0
C)
1 0 'm
E
U)
I
'm
cn
—
U) I ir
(D 1.2 (D I
a) ;U m
0
1 r_ I (D
a M
0 Z
aa),
za —
�
4)
1 -0 !w
: .2
o
l�3
LL
w
a)
I ,
1 :3 i 0 i> iz 1>
I ,
i
0
0
1.2 �Z
C) a.
2
a I ALIn
.
.
11L
a) CL >
X ICL ja� a)
a 0.
10
a)
W.2
i CL
:6 ,
I C�
1 0
: � CL
0
:.2 w
CL
10�
IW
ic�
0.
a) LLI a)
Co
a)
tilt
(D
(D
(0
a ; -6
E
t >
>
7�5
>
�w
c
m z
1 a)
a �Lu
0
:U)
Io
0
cc
— I ; :
co C:
CL <
:U)
0
o
0 ig
a
0.
❑
N 0
LO
(0
F
I-
R
F TNNI
m
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary................................................................................. 2
1.1 Project Scope.................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Project Approach............................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Summary of Observations..............................................................................................................4
2 System Assessment................................................................................. 7
2.1 Identification of key strategic options.............................................................................................. 7
2.2 SWOT Analysis...............................................................................................................................9
3 Cost Analysis.......................................................................................... 10
3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................10
3.2 ERP Replacement Project Costs..................................................................................................11
4 Recommended Next Steps.................................................................... 12
4.1 Recommended Strategic Approach..............................................................................................12
11Page __..
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary
Executive Summary
April, 2014
The County of St. Lucie, FL implemented Banner approximately 20 years ago as the County's primary
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system that provides support for Financial Management and
HR/Payroll business processes. The County recognizes that its existing ERP system is deficient in
supporting certain business needs as many of the constitutional officers have slowly moved away from
system. Currently, only the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Clerk of the Circuit Court
operate on the Banner system as their primary software solution for supporting the various financial
business processes of their departments. The remaining departments have been voicing their concerns
with the lack,of functionality in the Banner system as well as the vendor's primary focus in being
committed to the higher education sector. As a result, the County engaged Plante Moran to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of current back office systems and business processes to determine the
feasibility and practicality of replacing Banner with a new ERP solution.
1.1 PROJECT SCOPE
The intent of this project was to perform an assessment of the BOCC and Clerk's current financial, utility
billing, and personnel systems and business environment and identify key strategic options and
recommendations. Discussions with the Sheriff, Property Appraiser, Supervisor of Elections, and Tax
Collector were also in scope to identify needs for integration to a central County ERP system. In addition
to looking at Banner's functionality, the project included an assessment of all shadow systems used by
the BOCC and the Clerk to perform the financial, utility billing, and personnel processes. Specifically, the
project scope for phase 1 of the project included the following major tasks to develop this ERP Needs
Assessment report:
• Conducting project management tasks
• Reviewing documentation
• Conducting interviews
• Assessing the County's technical environment
The following functional areas were included within the scope of the project:
• Accounts Payable
• Budgeting
• Contract Management
• General Ledger
2 1 P a g e
• Human Resources
• Payroll
. Purchasing
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
...-. ....... .............
1.2 PROJECT APPROACH
The following chart illustrates the approach that was taken in performing the ERP Needs Assessment:
1. Initiation
• Define Project
Organizational Structure
• Develop Project Charter
• Develop Project Plan
-Establish Project
Collaboration Center
2. Needs
Assessment
• Review County
Documentation
-Conduct Interviews
-Conduct Cross
Functional Sessions
-Assess Technology
Environment
3. Draft Report
-Compile Findings
• Prepare Draft Report
• Present Draft Findings
4. Finalize Report
• Review Draft ERP Needs
Assessment
• Update Draft Report
-Finalize Report
The process for implementing new technology not only focuses on the technology itself, but also aims to
enhance existing business processes performed by individual departments across the County.
Technology is intended to enhance departmental business processes by:
• Making them more efficient
• Making them more effective
• Improving decision -making
• Providing enhanced customer service to both internal and external customers
• Improving access to information
• Streamlining processes to reduce costs.
The overall goal of this needs assessment was to define a future course of action for the County's ERP
environment to include software and supported business processes. The project was conducted using a
participative and inclusive approach with significant input from County management and staff to ensure
accuracy, completeness, and ownership of the resulting recommendations. Participation was obtained
through the following activities:
• Developing a Project Charter, working with the County staff to identify needs, making decisions
about the project, and reviewing and providing feedback on project deliverables.
• Facilitating project management status meetings to manage project activities and provide status
updates.
• Conducting interviews with the County departmental end users and process owners to evaluate
current systems and business processes. Departmental management was encouraged to
participate and invite team members.
3 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
• Conducting cross functional sessions where staff from all departments was invited to discuss
issues, current processes and opportunities in the following areas: Projects & Grants, Budgeting
and Contract Management.
• Collection and review of numerous documents provided by the County as well as completed
questionnaires by the departments.
• Soliciting input from participating departments that included an evaluation of the following items:
o Identification of current systems
o Duplicate entry/re-keying of information
o Issues with/shortcoming of current systems
o Strengths of existing systems
o Unused features/functionality of current systems
o Opportunities to interface systems
o Unique County business rules
o Vendor interaction
o Current technology project initiatives / future technology projects
• Requesting and collecting data which was used to develop a return on investment analysis (ROI)
relative to recommendations presented herein.
• Development of the Needs Assessment Report,
1.3 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
The approach Plante Moran followed in developing the Needs Assessment report focused on identifying
how the current technology applications support the County's business goals and denoting opportunities
for improving the effectiveness of business processes performed at the County in the future. While the
County has a significant number of shadow systems to address the financial, procurement, and human
resources functions across the organization (further detailed in the System Inventory section), the primary
systems in use to centrally manage these functions are as follows:
• Human Resources
c • Service Orders
U. Payroll
• Meter Inventory
Y
Table: Current Primary County Applications
4Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
1.3.1 Key Findings
Below are the key findings and opportunities:
Aging Financial System
Recent advances in ERP systems, which the County's Banner system
Lacks Functionality Found in
does not fully utilize (either because they are not available or were
Many Modern ERP Systems
never implemented); include electronic workflow and self-service
functionality. These functions significantly enhance efficiencies, as they
enable end -users to complete and route transactions to the appropriate
decision makers leveraging the use of notifications and queues which
allows for greater organization and less redundancy.
Limited Access to
The County's past policy of denying access to core financial and human
Information
resources functions caused departments to create many Excel
spreadsheets that duplicate all transactions that are entered into the
Banner system in order to access necessary detailed information in
real-time. This causes significant delays, manual processes, and
reconciliations, to keep these shadow systems updated.
Lack of Training
Some departments do have access to their financial data but do not
have the training on how to report or inquire on the information.
Therefore, they rely on Excel spreadsheets and Access Databases to
store duplicate information so that they can have real-time information
accessible to them.
Chart of Accounts (COA) The County currently manages grants and projects by assigning them a
Design new fund. When a grant or project is completed all of these accounts
must then be inactivated. This has made the COA very large and
cumbersome to manage. A redesign of the COA is needed and a
change in processes on how to manage this change is required to
improve reporting capabilities.
Manually Intensive Stand- Many of the shadow systems consist of individual Microsoft Excel
alone "Shadow Systems" and spreadsheets, Access databases, and paper files that require
Processes excessive time to use and maintain. Incorporating the information and
calculations from these shadow systems into an integrated ERP system
can reduce the effort required to maintain the information, make
information more accessible to others, eliminate redundancy and
manual reconciliation and reduce the risk of human error.
5Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
1.12 Key Opportunities
There were a number of consistent themes of unmet needs that were identified across each of the
functional areas. The unmet needs, which County management and staff expressed as opportunities for
improvement, are summarized as follows.
1. Full integration between all modules, allowing for the elimination of shadow systems.
2. Real-time, immediate update and access to additional financial and human resources
information.
3. Single entry of data and reduction in manual processes and shadow systems.
4. A consolidated modern system with user-friendly features (e.g., easy navigation, drop down
boxes, drill down functionality, validation of data upon entry, etc.) that offers on-line help
functions and customized system documentation.
5. User -driven, user-friendly, and flexible reporting tools that support the information needs of
staff and the County Commissioners including tracking and reporting of performance metrics.
6. Elimination of paper -based processes and replacement with automated, online workflows and
approvals.
7. Streamlined business processes incorporating established best business practices.
8. Self-service capabilities and other "e-government' opportunities such as employee and
vendor self-service and mobile workforce capability.
9. Improved reporting capabilities including dashboard capability.
Overall, the majority of the unmet needs that are listed above could be met by a public sector based ERP
system with a single, integrated database that allows integration with other existing applications.
6Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
2 System Assessment
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF KEY STRATEGIC OPTIONS
Based on the analysis of information provided by the County, there are three primary options in regard to
the strategic direction for a future enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems environment. The graphic
below illustrates these options and the table that follows provides more specific information relative to
each option.
1. Do Not
Change
Existing
Environment
Strategic
;
Options
Evaluated
2. Further
�� 3. Replace
Deploy &
Current
Integrate
Systems w/
Current =;r
Integrated
Systems
a� ERP
Option 1:Do Not Change the
Current Application
Environment
7 1 P a g e
With this option, the County would not elect to proceed with the
acquisition and implementation of a new ERP system and would
instead retain the existing Banner system, standalone systems, MS
Office applications, and manual processes. It is possible that some of
the manual re -keying of data between systems could be avoided by
developing incremental new interfaces (as per Option 2); however, this
option would not seek to promote additional integration for the County.
In addition, training for all of the staff on the existing functions and
features of the system could eliminate a small amount of work and
frustration.
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
Option 2: Further Deploy and Through a structured process, the County has the potential to better
Integrate Current Systems access functionality within its existing Banner systems by purchasing
additional software and implementing some existing software, re -
engineering its account structure, as well as developing/revising custom
technical integrations between the various systems to link, associate, or
sending transaction data between the systems. In order to successfully
realize the benefits of the future integrations, the County would need to
simultaneously consider the impacts of each integration point and plan
for optimization of each of the systems affected by the integration. This
option would require a capital investment and necessitate additional
ongoing investment compared to costs required to maintain the existing
environment.
Option 3: Replace Current The County can purchase an integrated financial management,
Systems with an Integrated procurement and personnel software suite from an ERP software
ERP provider which would be intended to replace the existing Banner
applications as well numerous shadow systems and manual processes.
An ERP solution would not replace all the County applications. A
strategy would need to integrate or interface the purchased solution
with some existing County applications using advanced tools. The
system selection should be a competitive procurement with stakeholder
input to define requirements and measure vendors against them. It
would require a capital investment and necessitate ongoing sustained
investment through software maintenance and continued internal
technical support.
81P.age-
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
The following is an analysis of the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats based on the
County of St. Lucie's current systems environment, ERP system selection project status, and
implementation considerations/plans to date:
1. IT support and other County staff have 1. Limited tools to develop reports for access to critical
created significant workarounds to
information
address user reporting needs
2.
Lack of integration between Banner components
2. County commitment to engaging
3.
Vendor has moved focus from Public Sector to Higher
stakeholders in change process
Education
3. County -wide desire to reduce paper-
4.
Limited knowledge of the Banner system frustrates users and
based processes whenever possible
discourages use of current systems
4. New County staff have experience using
5.
Significant shadow systems exist to assist with departmental
newer ERP systems
tracking of data in multiple functional areas
5. Growing interest in participating in
6.
Several staff expressed frustration due to limited access to
selection of new technology
data.
6. Pent up demand: Users crave system
7.
Banner inquiry feature limitations and limited reports make
changes to improve their work processes
access to information challenging
7. IT staff gearing up for implementation
8.
Limited ongoing training available. As a result, new staff
phase
members may not be receiving enough training to fully utilize
1. Stronger standard system reports in a
new system supplemented by a report
writer
2. Transition to an information self-service
environment
3. Growing belief that process re -design will
be critical during implementation to take
advantage of new systems
4. Leverage lessons learned from other
County technology implementations
5. Grass roots project involvement
strengthens likelihood of implementation
success
6. Vendor solutions incorporate public
sector best practices
7. Large County -wide project is conducive
to phasing, prompting incremental
change and spreading resource
requirements
8. Improved integration with other County
systems
9. Shared database for reporting
10. Automated electronic workflows
9 1 P a g e
1. Managing staff expectations that future system may not
provide all requested features
2. Managing expectations that system functions will solve
problems - will require process redesign, procedure & policy
changes and changes to roles and responsibilities
3. Managing expectations re: balance of robust data tracking
capabilities vs. simple interface
4. Strong institutional/current system knowledge concentrated in
staff nearing retirement
5. General anxiety about change
6. Users entrenched in established systems and processes
since Banner was implemented
7. Need for ongoing system support staffing
8. Inherent complexity with data conversion and integration
9. If single vendor solution is not selected, County's integration
goals may be challenged
10. Managing change required when moving from paper -based
processes to electronic processes
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
t�Pl4 WA I
The following represents the cost benefit analysis for five scenarios. The five scenarios are summarized
below. If the County decides to go with Option 3 — New ERP, two choices for each option are provided.
The two choices for each option show a traditional and cloud solution. A traditional solution would have
the hardware onsite at the County (similar to the current Banner system) and the software license
purchase as part of the one-time cost. A cloud solution would not include hardware (this would be
housed and maintained by the vendor) or a software license purchase. Instead an annual fee (roughly
three times the cost of traditional software maintenance) is charged for the use and maintenance of the
software.
Option 1 - Status Quo
This represents costs for maintaining the status quo, including maintenance and support for
Banner and the additional systems that could be replaced with a new ERP system.
Option 2 - Invest in Banner
This represents estimated costs for purchasing additional functionality for Banner, including the
current (status -quo) costs plus an estimated $181,215 one-time cost for new functionality and
$20,490 in additional annual, support costs. ACS quoted an annual cost increase of 10% which
has been included in this estimate.
Option 3 - New ERP
• Low Estimate (Lower -end Tier 2). This represents a lower cost scenario based on Plante
Moran's experience, along with more conservative estimates of cost savings (based on the low
end of the expected cost savings range). This scenario would involve process redesign and
implementation of a Tier 2 system with a lower degree of complexity, thus maintaining lower cost
and implementation effort. The multiplier used is .75and_costs are based on market data
obtained and analyzed by Plante Moran.
• Medium (High Tier 2) Estimate. This represents the most realistic scenario based on Plante
Moran's experience, along with an expected estimate of cost savings (based on the mid -point of
the expected cost savings range). This scenario would involve process redesign and
implementation of a Tier 2 system with a high degree of complexity, thus driving up cost and
implementation effort. The multiplier used is 1 and costs are based on market data obtained and
analyzed by Plante Moran.
• High Estimate (Tier 1.5 Scenario). This represents a higher cost scenario based on Plante
Moran's experience, along with more aggressive estimates of cost savings (based on the high
end of the expected cost savings range). This scenario would involve process redesign
implementation of a Tier 1.5 system with a higher degree of complexity, thus maintaining higher
cost and implementation effort. The multiplier used is 1.25 and costs are based on market data
obtained and analyzed by Plante Moran.
101Page
N
I--
O
ci
M W
O
� w
�' a
U z
W
W �
W
LU
� � J
U v a
J �
Q
C/) co a
Z W
N
0 W co
Liz
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
4.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC APPROACH
While many incremental improvements could be made or added to the current fragmented applications
which would mitigate the investment required by changing systems, the primary challenge with
maintaining the status quo would be the inefficiencies, lack of recent advances in ERP systems (e.g.,
workflows), duplicate and triplicate entry with the excel spreadsheets and very little confidence in the
current software by the majority of the users. When Ellucian took over the Banner product in 2012, the
strategic focus is only on the education community. Staying with a vendor that is not focusing their
software development on the municipal sector would not be recommended.
Should the County conclude to remain with the twenty year old Banner software and current shadow
systems, the complexities of the decision process could be delayed; however, it would be likely that the
County would conclude to change its ERP system in the future at a time which is more reactionary than .
strategic and planned.
Remaining with the current environment does not appear feasibie.in the long term and inappropriate as a
future strategic direction in context of the County's strategic goals and concerns of the current financial,
procurement and personnel applications environment.
While current inefficiencies were difficult for the County staff to quantify, there is a common belief
amongst -staff that the Banner system and processes are inefficient and there is a universal
acknowledgement that current information is not accessible or reportable, therefore, all departments have
created several shadow systems for tracking budget, financial transactions and calculations. The same
data is being entered into multiple spreadsheets as well.as in the Banner application. Given this inefficient
environment and negative attitude toward the Banner system, the County may be best served to move
toward procuring a new ERP via a competitive bid process. Should the County move with this
recommendation, they should investigate both a vendor -hosted solution as well as an on premise (i.e.,
County -hosted) solution.
121Page
wt
0
�_
�Q
_ a
��
a�
�Q
u n ct,
a
Ey�
®
m m
E
C
N
r
.EE T
C O H
N N m C O tm —
t0iN.
ie�•' iN
L
y F cc in Irn trn io
lL
'`. .H
,LL '- : O <'C , O
U.'lL1^Z i O O O ILL ALL
LL t ,
IL
1
i ! 7 tt `LL
, ILL ,� ;� E� i I ;LL.
,
I 1
t
.'_..,...._...... _.._L.....__.....
�� ��
iF IF
_..I. ____ I
t� Ems .-._ie�_...._j _... ..-yin._tl.....I .:.!_ .._.l.'...i�._;.ii�..__ vi- Ui U'i
IN jM . �.:..1�...
m
n iP
i� EF Ir f� Icy i ;- !8 `ems- i IN
joc0
irn
iIrns
o o o to c
tj
!o to cc
® .'
1
I I
i �
c m
o cb
U) o
a�
j t 1
c
'c
rn
a
U
j i Ig
aEi
m m m m o
c
w10
10
i I N irn i
-
f
i-
i
-
a T 4)
! a
m
a
I o i a f i=
e
t o p
m
iC I
Vi
C
,v� ju 10 N
tCo j!;
1t
j1
,ip.c�.
E
w`o
iE o f2C
a) ioto o CD
1'
a t`�
`
Iwc
?� `o � ! n !Cl'
`c
�ac`Nmai
I1.
y O
0
Et
v, cim
iod
'�•% C
N(n
IUCy 0`o
C
co_mE
0
1ii
`s
'I erC 'd�
E
m
m rn jd 0ao
c(O CDIj m
0o 0
>NiO`n
o
o A +
a d jo
ycm a.
i��
o :c
, o c-
t
Ild7'
y'
a' f
`o Lo s N
w
w
i a)
���'� ( t
o I�
jdO
(w
oay 'as ` a
o
o
:o
!'.WCO
I1s�op`
a o ir -
wCL
W
�u9
't
o ioo�
VN
W
'
po m NI5CDID
Ci°
;a'oOq i'!1Nd:m
Fm
vooZ � _°o Laa
a
o°cis'
a
tf0
v�
m�
N M V
to CO W at M N N
aN- aM-
N
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
4.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC APPROACH
While many incremental improvements could be made or added to the current fragmented applications
which would mitigate the investment required by changing systems, the primary challenge with
maintaining the status quo would be the inefficiencies, lack of recent advances in ERP systems (e.g.,
workflows), duplicate and triplicate entry with the excel spreadsheets and very little confidence in the
current software by the majority of the users. When Ellucian took over the Banner product in 2012, the
strategic focus is only on the education community. Staying with a vendor that is not focusing their
software development on the municipal sector would not be recommended.
Should the County conclude to remain with the twenty year old Banner software and current shadow
systems, the complexities of the decision process could be delayed; however, it would be likely that the
County would conclude to change its ERP system in the future at a time which is more reactionary than
strategic and planned.
Remaining with the current environment does not appear feasible in the long term and inappropriate as a
future strategic direction in context of the County's strategic goals and concerns of the current financial,
procurement and personnel applications environment.
While current inefficiencies were difficult for the County staff to quantify, there is a common belief
amongst staff that the Banner system and processes are inefficient and there is a universal
acknowledgement that current information is not accessible or reportable, therefore, all departments have
created several shadow systems for tracking budget, financial transactions and calculations. The same
data is being entered into multiple spreadsheets as well as in the Banner application. Given this inefficient
environment and negative attitude toward the Banner system, the County may be best served to move
toward procuring a new ERP via a competitive bid process. Should the County move with this
recommendation, they should investigate both a vendor -hosted solution as well as an on premise (i.e.,
County -hosted) solution.
121Page
a- t
-C C)
0
w
M
U
o
t:
LL
G
E
E
E
m
:3
10
65
CL
i N LO tn N U) LO 110 N NI to Lr) Lo Lo
LO LO �U) Lf) LO U.) j
a
cj ;--
a)
'5
c) 04
a I
�co
i(O
m
0 1 LO
Lr)
;
Lo
N
izz iz a
N
'a) !C,
m
:3 :3
m
L"L
; r
o
!LL
-
lLL o
:- a : a a
.'r
-a
17L
F
LL
c
C) 0 0 j u L
LO U')
LO
16 U U') U i L r
LO
L r
iz izz
iz it
iZ iz
izz A cq
i2
iq :i4
C,4
04
i
N 0
io-
INCF)
I
r- c
r- c
� o o
c a
o 0
:3 o
1 0
a
2
o o :2
12
0
-- --------
-le
W
cu
0
0
U)
>
>0
Q.
_j
0
a
CL
w
w
CD
-0
WS
0
OM
;.c
0
a 1
M
ID
3)
liz
i a i.2
18
i I
0 i 0
CL
CO
CL
0
T)
Lo
0 1 r 0
o i-a
o
M
�LL
i 0 E
0
cu
m 0
i E !.E- im iu
i
m w
CL
:2
10
10
i 0 !t
2
C i
cu
c
M —
U) 0
o D-o
0 co C
i CL 4-)
r CL
1.2
8L pj
.2 iv
4) 0
1
'CD i M
I 0
2 iL
4) � c
U) a
0 10
rn
C
0)
N
l'-
: A
: E ,
! (D
ld.
r
:3
w Im
tm ..r-
0 ;=
i CL
-
i75
;" )
0 —0
- ,
0 i 0 tm 1 M
a
0 (n
Co
IL
it
io
10
0,
wo
0 tr
�m E
10)
1-2 COL CCD !'a 10
c '41)
0 r-
CL
LIJ i 0 :4)
� -6
i'm —
-0 4)
1,2 AL
-.5 :w
M
0
'0
CL
U)
C)
Q. C
2
� c
> 1 r
0 a)
i'a
1
:w
W
CL CL
.2 ILU CL
C�
o
o
0
:3
0
m cu CU
0
z
CL (n
9L
aIL
ac
(U
(0
I-
CD
I- I I F
1;: 1�!
m
n ff0
1