HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly notes 4-14-23
th
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS – WEEKLY NOTES for: April 14, 2023
TO: City Council Members& Staff
FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator
Zoning & Development Items:
1.No new applications have been received for the April Planning Commission.
th
2.Washington County did supply some responses to the four questions the Council had from the Jan 20Council workshop.
These responses are enclosed as are the questions… As you can obviously note, the responses are vague, incomplete, and/or
continue to offer false data… including a untrue statement that “…Over the past several decades many alternatives have been
considered and shared with city partners.” The Council might desire to engage these at some point.Ona related note, City
Resident Dick Gacke did share the enclosed comment about what was reported in the Pioneer Press – the article can be found
at https://www.twincities.com/2023/04/11/washington-county-gets-pushback-after-pitching-plan-to-take-over-road-in-oak-
park-heights/
3.As directed by the City Council, Enclosed is the letter sent to Washington County Board – Dated 4/14/23 – relatedto the South
Frontage Road matter.
Other Items:
(4-14-23 – UPDATE --THERE IS NEW INFORATION ON A LOCATION FOR A DEBRIS SITE) - SEE ENCLOSED.
The City will be sending out the enclosed letter related to the 2023 ASH TREE Removals in City ROW.
st
Enclosed is the 1Qtr listing of OPEN TAX Petitions in Oak park heights – totaling $137 million in assessed values.
I am often asked about OPEN MEETING questions; The LMC Handbook is a good quick reference for this – I have enclosed page
20 and 21 for some further insight. These are common concerns over the years in all cities … but to the best of my knowledge I know
of no one who has intentionally tried to act in bad-faith to avoid a public process or meet in a quorm. The pages are a good review
and anyone is welcome to check in with the City Attorney.
Please see the PFAS MEMO from Andy Kegley, DPW.
March Police Activity- from Chief Hansen.
st
-23 in Duluth. We are informed that hotel availability may
The League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conferenceis being held June 21
be limited – please register early and secure hotel room if you planned to attend.
https://www.lmc.org/learning-events/events/league-events/2023-lmc-annual-conference/
Mayor McComber Provided:
1.NLC Update for 4/8, 4/12 and 4/13
2.SPAAR Update for April 2023
3.Stillwater Partnership Plan Invitation
1 of 43
3
2 of 43
Eric Johnson
From:Jennifer Wagenius <Jennifer.Wagenius@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent:Friday, April 7, 2023 3:02 PM
To:Eric Johnson
Subject:RE: South Frontage Road
HiEric
TheĭƚǒƓƷǤƭdesire,goals,andbenefitstothecommunityfortheprojectremainunchangedfromprevious
communication.FollowingaretheresponsestothequestionsposedbyOakParkHeights.
1.a./ƚǒƓƷǤƭdesirefortheManningAvenueConnectionandgoalsitwouldaccomplish
Connectthemajornorthsouthbackboneofthecountyroadinfrastructure
EnhancesafetyformotoristsbyeliminatingtheneedtotravelonabusyHwy36betweenManningAvenueand
StillwaterBlvd
AddanewtrailtoallowpedestrianandbicycliststomovesafelyacrossHwy36andprovideconnectivitytothe
RegionalTrailsystem
ProvideanalternateroutetonearbyStillwaterHighSchool,helpingtoalleviatethetrafficcongestionthat
happensespeciallyduringthemorning,increasingsafetyforstudentsandothersinthearea
Supporteconomicdevelopment
1.b.Mostrecenttotalcostestimate
ThemostrecentcostestimateisasincludedintheCIP,$12.2M.GivenƷƚķğǤƭconstructionmarketthoseestimatesmay
belowrequiringthecountyboardtoconsiderreducingthescopeoftheprojectorallocatingadditionalresources.
2.Benefitstoresidents,businesses,andtaxpayersofOakParkHeights
EnhancesafetyformotoristsbyeliminatingtheneedtotravelonabusyHwy36betweenManningAvenueand
StillwaterBlvd
AddanewtrailtoallowpedestrianandbicycliststomovesafelyacrossHwy36andprovideconnectivitytothe
RegionalTrailsystem
ProvideanalternateroutetonearbyStillwaterHighSchool,helpingtoalleviatethetrafficcongestionthat
happensespeciallyduringthemorning,increasingsafetyforstudentsandothersinthearea
Supporteconomicdevelopment
3.a.CostofWestboundsliplanefromStillwaterBoulevardtoManningAvenueandcostestimateforaneastbound
sliplanefromManningAvenuetoStillwaterBoulevard
Neitherofthesecostestimatesareavailable.
3.b.Wasaneastboundsliplaneconsidered
AneastboundsliplanewascontemplatedaspartoftheManninginterchangeproject.Hwy.36isunderMNDOT
jurisdictionandMNDOThasnotdesiredaneastboundsliplaneinthepast.Whilethecountywouldnotopposeaslip
lane,asliplanewouldnotmeetseveralofthestatedprojectgoals.
4.Whatotheralternativeshavebeenconsidered
Overthepastseveraldecadesmanyalternativeshavebeenconsideredandsharedwithcitypartners.Dueto
developmentthathassinceoccurredmostofthosealternativesarenolongerviable.
Weappreciatetheoffertopartneronatrafficmodelingexercise.Ifthisprojectcontinuestomoveforwardthatwork
willbedoneaspartofthefinaldesignandthecountywouldwelcometheĭźƷǤƭengagementinthatanalysis.
1
3 of 43
JenniferWagenius|DeputyCountyAdministrator
Pronouns:she,her,hers
WashingtonCounty
nd
1494962StreetNorth,Stillwater,MN55082
6514306007
Agreatplacetolive,workandƦƌğǤͶƷƚķğǤandtomorrow.
From:EricJohnson<eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com>
Sent:Thursday,April6,20234:41PM
To:JenniferWagenius<Jennifer.Wagenius@co.washington.mn.us>
Subject:SouthFrontageRoad
***Externalmessagealert:ThismessageoriginatedfromoutsidetheWashingtonCountyemailsystem.Usecaution
whenclickinghyperlinks,downloadingpicturesoropeningattachments.***
Jennifer
nd
ThiswasourletterfromthatpastFeb2.
IwouldreferencetwothingsΑjusttorecallitfromsolongğŭƚͶ
IftheCountycantakethequestions(excerptedbelow)headonandresponditmaybeŷĻƌƦŅǒƌͶthesereallyare
neverrespondedtoΑwejusthearthatͻ͵͵thishasalwaysbeenaķĻƭźƩĻ͵͵ͼ
Itislikelythatsomeoneknowledgeableabouttheprojectcantakeacoupleofhoursandcraftstraightforward
responses..IķƚƓƷthinkanyoftheseare
unreasonableƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭͶ͵Theseallfairlyrelatetoneed,costs,Alternativesandimpacts.
OurCitydoesofferinthelettertoengageinfurthertrafficanalysisatSTWBlvdandotherseĭƷźƚƓƭͶǝźğa
ͻw!CCL/MODELING99w/L{9ͼ
AndwehavebeengivenpermissiontoexpendEngineeringfundstoperformƷŷźƭͶagainitŷğƭƓƷbeendoneby
theCountyandhadofferedthatopportunity.
GoodLuckatyourWorksession.
Takecare
Eric
2
4 of 43
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574
April 14th, 2023
Board Chairman Gary Kriesel & County Board Members
C/O Jennifer Wagenius, Deputy County Administrator
Washington County
nd
14949 62 Street N
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Chair Kriesel & County Board Members:
We are writing regarding Washington County’s proposed County Road 15 Connection (the “Project”)
discussed at the County’s April 11, 2023 Work Session and a possible action under Minn. Stat. §163.11 to
th
take over 58Street from the City of Oak Park Heights. As the County has been aware for many months
and years now, the City has serious concern about the County’s intention and effort to build a county-road
th
extension of 58 Street between Stillwater Blvd. and Manning Avenue.
Procedural Concerns:
Our City has outlined many procedural concerns to the underlying process that has led us all to this juncture.
We again offer and can unilaterally document that at no time has the County made a honest effort to engage
the City of Oak Park Heights, our business community and our other partners that would be expected for a
project of this scale. Most recently, for example, the City sent a letter on February 3rd, 2023 specifically
pointing out traffic concerns with the proposed Project and offered to have its consulting Engineer meet
with County Staff to discuss, analyze and address those concerns. By its lack of response or engagement,
the County apparently declined that offer. This most recent example is but one of many examples of the
City attempting to reach out an olive branch to discuss its concerns over the course of years.
Instead, the County has given all deference to the City of Stillwater and a Developer without regard to the
specific community of Oak Park Heights in which a significant part of the Project is located and will most
th
directly impact. This is made more apparent by the recent act of your April 11, 2023 workshop meeting
wherein certain parties (i.e. Stillwater and the School District) were invited to attend and participate while
Oak Park Heights was not invited and instead had to take its own initiative to view the Board’s agenda and
have its representatives opt to be present. The County’s efforts to evade Oak Park Heights’ offers to meet
is further evidenced by County Commissioner statements at the recent meeting that they had held prior
meetings with City of Stillwater representatives, yet no such meeting has been proffered to Oak Park
Heights.
Substantive Concerns:
Please note, our City has outlined many substantive concerns with that this Project including the following.
5 of 43
1. The analysis of current and future traffic flow patterns and loads has not been adequately studied
nor addressed. Our research indicates the Project would cause burden upon Memorial Avenue and
require City investment in infrastructure on Memorial Ave. that is not currently needed with
existing traffic load but will likely become necessary if this Project moves forward. The Project
th
would increase traffic burdens in our community at Stillwater Blvd and 58 Street and yet is not
expected to offer our City with a clear nor sustainable fiscal benefit to address those burdens. The
County has refused to engage or consider these impacts.
To make matters worse, our studies show that this Project likely will stress our existing businesses,
potentially resulting in business closures which impacts our tax-base in a time-horizon where our
City is facing the imminent closure of the A.S. King Plant.
2. Prior discussions and limited engagement have been premised upon a belief that this Project
would constitute a County State-Aid Highway under Minn. Statutes chapter 162. This would
only make sense since the existing northerly Manning Avenue leg of CSAH 15 and the southerly
Stillwater Blvd. leg of CSAH 15 are both State-Aid Highways. Tellingly, Statute § 162.02, subd.
7 & subd. 8 would require the County to obtain approval of the Project plans from the Oak Park
Heights City Council to establish a new county state-aid highway. And given the objections of
Oak Park Heights, the parties should be pursuing dispute resolution under § 162.02, subd. 8a. Per
th
your recent workshop, interestingly, it now appears the County intends to take the existing 58
Street and extend it as an ordinary county highway under Section 163.11. This of course will
awkwardly create a roughly ¾ mile segment of Count Highway 15 that will not be a State-Aid
Highway. This makes little sense, but seems to be the County’s method to avoid meaningful
discussions with and approval from Oak Park Heights and actually involve the community at
large.
3. The County claims to desire connectivity of its county-highway system as its rationale for the
Project, and wanting to divert traffic away from Hwy 36 and onto county roads. Yet the County
th
declines Oak Park Heights’ suggestion that the County should agree to take over all of 58 Street,
running east of Stillwater Blvd. all the way across to Oakgreen Avenue thence north to STH 36.
th
The County’s apparent objection is that the additional segment of 58 Street would not create
th
connectivity to other County highways. Yet just north of 58 Street and Oakgreen, across Hwy
36, lies Greeley Street in Stillwater which constitutes County Hwy 66 which is not connected.
Thus interconnection to another county highway could indeed be made by the suggestion of Oak
Park Heights, which the County has rejected. Again, the County’s stated objectives are not
consistent..
4. We have supplied independent Engineering and Market Impact Data to your Staff. Our positions
provided are not based on conjecture or speculation, rather we have taken the time to study these
issues in-depth. The County has disregarded each of these and has failed to engage in discussing
these concerns.
5. The County’s perspective that it is offering to fund costs “… for the City…” is interesting - if this
is a Regional Project and/or one that is desirous of the County, then it is the burden of the County
to fund all such costs. It is a plain fact that the County has a duty to fund its own projects nor seek
funds from others without a clear demonstration of local benefit. We fail to see how this is a
unreasonable position. We have explained this to County staff on many occasions and in writing.
Beyond the concepts of double-taxation, Oak Park Heights too can adopt various “Cost Share
Policies” that have no defensible correlation to benefit and we would expect your entity would take
a similar position should we do so.
6 of 43
6. Terms utilized such as Economic Development, Safe-Routes to School, “Safety Concerns”, and
Direct Connectivity are definitively important, however – when none of these matters are
documented to be verifiable, use very-loose definitions nor meet rational / professional tests - our
City further questions how this process continues to unfold. Again, the City has shared data with
your staff and can affirm these positions. This should be concerning to the County Board before it
seeks to invest $12,000,000 (likely far more) in a roadway. Instead a reasonable pause is warranted
to hold a broad re-engagement of needs, alternatives and impacts with all partners – not just a select
few.
Ultimately, if the County desires to implement Minn. Stat. § 163.11 – and become the active steward of
this portion of roadway, that is a choice it may decide to make, but such action does not alter the above
facts. Such an action by the County would certainly not aid in altering Oak Park Heights lack of support
for this proposal at this time given the lack of honest process, lack of legitimate documentation of need,
and unwillingness to even discuss nor address the possible impacts in our community. Given this unilateral
act which inherently nets the County little, the City will again be placed in a position to promptly advise
our Federal, State and Regional partners of this dissent. We would expect this to mirror our communications
to the MET COUNCIL from 2020.
These challenging positions aside, at this time the entirety of the Oak Park Heights City Council is amenable
to meet with the entirety of Washington County Board – perhaps in the next 90 days - in a joint work-
session meeting to directly exchange ideas and concerns about this Project so that the two entities can better
understand the other’s perspectives and to ensure clear data is being shared.
Our Council will await feedback from you as to if or what that discussion could include or when.
Sincerely,
___________________________
Mayor Mary McComber
___________________________
Councilmember Mike Runk
___________________________
Councilmember Chuck Dougherty
___________________________
Councilmember Mike Liljegren
___________________________
Councilmember Carly Johnson
7 of 43
8 of 43
PRESS RELEASE
April 14, 2023
Temporary Tree Debris Drop-off Site
Beginning this Saturday, April 15th, Washington County will open a temporary tree debris drop-
off site for resident use only at BelwinConservancy. Washington County residents are invited to
dispose of tree debris caused by the recent ice/snowstorm on April 1st free of charge at Lucy
Winton Bell Athletic Fields at Belwin Conservancy, 15601 Hudson Rd. N., Lakeland, MN 55043.
The site willbe available on Saturdays, Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 8am to 2pm.
Residents in the county are also welcome to use the County Yard Waste Site in Hugo.
Belwin Conservancy is a land-based nonprofit that protects wild spaces and connects people to
nature. For more information about visiting Belwin, please visit belwin.org.
9 of 43
10 of 43
11 of 43
12 of 43
RELEVANT LINKS:
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28,
City councils also routinely appoint individual council members to act as
1996).
liaisons between the council and particular groups. These types of groups
may be considered a committee that is subject to the open meeting law.
Sovereign v. Dunn,498
The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where the mayor and
N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App.
one other member of a city council attended a series of mediation sessions
1993).See also Minnesota
Daily v. Univ. of Minnesota,
regarding an annexation dispute that were not open to the public. The court
432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct.
of appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to these meetings,
App. 1988)and Zahavy v.
Univ. of Minnesota, 544
concluding “that a gathering of public officials is not a ‘committee,
N.W.2d 32 (Minn. Ct. App.
subcommittee, board, department or commission’ subject to the open
1996).
meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-making
powers of the governing body.”
Sovereign v. Dunn,498
The court of appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the
N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App.
governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a
1993).
quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation
of power from the governing body to the group.
Thuma v. Kroschel,506
In addition, a separate notice for a special meeting of the city council may
N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App.
also be required if a quorum of the council will be present at a committee
1993).
meeting and will participate in the discussion.
For example, when a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the
city’s planning commission, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there
was a violation of the open meeting law, not because of the council
members’attendance at the meeting, but because the council members
conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28,
Based on that decision, the attorney general has advised that mere
1996).DPO16-005.
attendance by additional council members at a meeting of a council
committee held in compliance with the open meeting law would not
constitute a special city council meeting requiring separate notice. The
attorney general warned, however, that the additional council members
should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations, absent a
separate notice of a special city council meeting.
5.5.Chance or social gatheringsChance or social gatherings
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v.
Chance or social gathering of city council members will not be considered a
District 742 Cmty. Sch.,332
meeting subject to the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum
N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983).
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
present, or, if a quorum is present, as long as the quorum does not discuss,
No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510
decide, or receive information about official city business.
(Minn. 1983).DPO 18-003.
Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a conversation between two
v. City of Afton,323 N.W.2d
council members over lunch regarding an application for a special-use
757 (Minn. 1982).
permit did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum was not
present.
League ofMinnesota Cities Information Memo:4/19/2022
Meetings of City CouncilsPage 20
13 of 43
RELEVANT LINKS:
6.Serial Serial meetingsmeetings
Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a
No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510
quorum of the public body held serially to avoid public hearings or to
(Minn. 1983).See also DPO
10-011and DPO06-017.
fashion agreement on an issue may violate the open meeting law depending
on the circumstances. A Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision also indicates
that serial meetings could violate the open meeting law.
MankatoFree Press v. City of
The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual
North Mankato,563 N.W.2d
council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a
291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
city position in one-on-one closed interviews. Although the district court
found that no meetings had occurred because there was never a quorum of
the council present, the court of appeals remanded the decision back to the
district court for a determination of whether the council members had used
this interview process for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the
open meeting law.
Mankato Free Press v. City of
On remand, the district court found that the private interviews were not
North Mankato, No. C9-98-
conducted for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting
677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15,
1998)(unpublished decision).
law. This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals, in an
unpublished decision, agreed with the district court’s decision. A city that
wants to hold private interviews with applicants for city employment should
first consult with its city attorney.
7.Training sessions
Compare St. Cloud
Whether the participation of a quorum or more of council members in a
Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742
training program should be considered a meeting under the open meeting
Community Schools,332
N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983)and
law would likely depend on whether the program includes a discussion of
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5,
general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an
1975).
individual city.
A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5,
The attorney general has advised that a city council’s participation in a non-
1975).
public training program devoted to developing skills at effective
communication was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law.
However, the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of
specific city business by the attending members, such as where council
members exchange views on the city’s policy in granting liquor licenses,
such discussions would likely violate the open meeting law.
DPO16-006.
The commissioner of the Department of Administration has likewise advised
that a school board’s participation in a non-public team-building session to
“improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem
solving among Board members,” was not a meeting subject to the open
meeting law if the members are not “gathering to discuss, decide, or receive
information as a group relating to ‘the official business’ of the governing
body.”
League ofMinnesota Cities Information Memo:4/19/2022
Meetings of City CouncilsPage 21
14 of 43
15 of 43
16 of 43
17 of 43
18 of 43
19 of 43
April 7th, 2023
To: Mayor and Council
From: Chief of Police, Steve Hansen
Subject: Police Activity Report March 2023
This overview report is the activity of the Oak Park Heights Police Department during the month
of March 2023. Officers responded to and generated 408 calls for service in the City of Oak Park
Heights during this month. Quick Breakdown for some of those calls for service include: 84
medicals, 5 fire related, 6 thefts from businesses, 20vehicle accidents, 16alarms, 4
disturbance/disorderly conducts, 41 traffic violations, 5 suspicious persons/vehicles, 5 mental
health/suicide threats, 15welfare checks.
With flood season upon us, Sgt. Croft and myself visited three sites along the river (Sunny side marina,
waste treatment plant, King Plant). Spoke with plant managers and toured the facilities on the 23rd. Xcel
had already started construction of their flood protection wall is monitoring closely.
With the resignation of a new hire Fuhrmann recently, we moved forward with advertising to fill the
th
police position. Applications have a closed date of April 24.
Both of our new squad cars have completed their final build out for interior equipment and have been
put into service this month.
Community Outreach:
Officers participated in Coffee with a cop at Boutwells landing visiting at two locations, their main café
and the gables assisted living/memory care unit.
New Hire:
Officer Gustafson will be wrapping up phase 3 and going into phase 4 in the middle of April with a
st
projected field training completion of May 1.
Calls for service highlight:
th
1. Officer responded to 56 circle N for trespassing complaint of two unknown naked females
in the homeowner’s hot tub. Both females had entered into the comp’s house without
permission and eventually were found their way to the hot tub. Both adult females refused
to leave and were combative with law enforcement too.
th
2. Officer responded to an oven fire on 57 st
20 of 43
3. Traffic complaint of veh/chev suburban swerving all over w/b hwy 36 from the new bridge,
officers located vehicle and driver was FACE TIMING on his phone. Citation issued.
4. OPH Officers responded to assist Stillwater with an active shooter in the 2500 blk of west
orleans. OPHPD officer took direct gun fire from suspect male with several rounds striking
the squad car. Two other OPHPD officers assisted with clearing the apt building and scene
security.
th
5. Officers received two separate burglary reports at a residence on 57st, the owner had
recently died and the trust is reporting the incidents as they clean the house out.
6. Officers responded to the walgreens for a report of an unwanted person/female sitting in
the entrance area that was taking her clothes off. Upon arrival, officers determined it was a
recent jail release and her friend arrived to pick her up quickly. No clothing removed.
7. Officers responded to Walmart for counterfeit bills passed. 4-$100 bills that were washed
$10 bills.
8. Officers responded to the Stillwater High School lot for report of vehicles doing donuts in
the lot. Upon arrival, officer observed fresh acceleration marks and located parties involved.
9. Officers responded to Walmart for a disturbance, 3 adults gotten into a verbal/physical
altercation by the toy aisle. Both parties issued citations for disorderly conduct.
21 of 43
22 of 43
23 of 43
24 of 43
25 of 43
27 of 43
28 of 43
29 of 43
30 of 43
31 of 43
32 of 43
34 of 43
35 of 43
36 of 43
38 of 43
39 of 43
Mpdbm!Nbslfu!Vqebuf!!Nbsdi!3134
!B!SFTFBSDI!UPPM!QSPWJEFE!CZ!UIF!TBJOU!QBVM!BSFB!BTTPDJBUJPO!PG!SFBMUPST¯
.!211/1&,!244/4&,!5/2&
Dibohf!jo!Dibohf!joDibohf!jo!
Ofx!MjtujohtDmptfe!TbmftNfejbo!Tbmft!Qsjdf
Pbl!Qbsl!Ifjhiut
NbsdiZfbs!up!Ebuf
31333134,!0!31333134,!0!
7 1.211/1&23 21.27/8&
Ofx!Mjtujoht
4 8,!244/4&6 22,!231/1&
Dmptfe!Tbmft
%481-111%496-111,!5/2&%481-111%471-111.3/8&
Nfejbo!Tbmft!Qsjdf+
%437-444%515-53:,!34/:&%497-891%484-347.4/6&
Bwfsbhf!Tbmft!Qsjdf+
%2:8%2:4.3/3&%299%2:7,!5/4&
Qsjdf!Qfs!Trvbsf!Gppu+
21:/7&::/7&.:/2&217/7&211/7&.6/7&
Qfsdfou!pg!Psjhjobm!Mjtu!Qsjdf!Sfdfjwfe+
24 51,!318/8&26 43,!224/4&
Ebzt!po!Nbslfu!Voujm!Tbmf
2 4,!311/1&......
Jowfoupsz!pg!Ipnft!gps!Tbmf
1/3 1/8,!361/1&......
Npouit!Tvqqmz!pg!Jowfoupsz
+!Epft!opu!bddpvou!gps!tfmmfs!dpodfttjpot/!!}!!Bdujwjuz!gps!pof!npoui!dbo!tpnfujnft!mppl!fyusfnf!evf!up!tnbmm!tbnqmf!tj{f/
31333134
Nbsdi
31333134
Zfbs!up!Ebuf
8
23
7
22
21
4
6
1
.211/1&,!244/4&
.27/8&
,!231/1&
Ofx!MjtujohtDmptfe!Tbmft
Ofx!MjtujohtDmptfe!Tbmft
27.Dpvouz!Uxjo!Djujft!Sfhjpo
c
Dibohf!jo!Nfejbo!Tbmft!Qsjdf!gspn!Qsjps!Zfbs!)7.Npoui!Bwfsbhf*++
Pbl!Qbsl!Ifjhiut
b
,!91&
,!71&
,!51&
,!31&
1&
.!31&
.!51&
.!71&
.!91&
2.31192.311:2.31212.31222.31232.31242.31252.31262.31272.31282.31292.312:2.31312.31322.31332.3134
++!Fbdi!epu!sfqsftfout!uif!dibohf!jo!nfejbo!tbmft!qsjdf!gspn!uif!qsjps!zfbs!vtjoh!b!7.npoui!xfjhiufe!bwfsbhf/
!!!Uijt!nfbot!uibu!fbdi!pg!uif!7!npouit!vtfe!jo!b!epu!bsf!qspqpsujpofe!bddpsejoh!up!uifjs!tibsf!pg!tbmft!evsjoh!uibu!qfsjpe/
41 of 43
Dvssfou!bt!pg!Bqsjm!8-!3134/!Bmm!ebub!gspn!OpsuitubsNMT/!!}!!Dpqzsjhiu!TipxjohUjnf/
EBUF;
ZPVSF!JOWJUFE!
Uivstebz-!Nbz!5ui
UJNF;
UP!UIF!QBSUZ"
XIBU;
8;11qn!Qsphsbn
Tjmfou!Bvdujpo
Ipst!epfvwsft!'!Dbti!Cbs
MPDBUJPO;
Pvs!3134!Gvoe.B.Offe!jt!up!tvqqpsu!pvs!6.zfbs!
Nfoubm!Ifbmui!Jojujbujwf!xjui!Tujmmxbufs!Bsfb!Qvcmjd!Tdippmt/
31279!Tu/!Dspjy!Usbjm!O
Zpvs!tvqqpsu!jt!dsjujdbm!up!pvs!fggpsut"
Tdboejb-!NO
svtujdspput/xjof
BUUJSF;!
Dbtvbm
Qvsdibtf!zpvs!ujdlfu!bu;!qbsuofstijqqmbo/psh
42 of 43
ZPVSF!JOWJUFE!
2986!Hsffmz!Tu/!T/-!Tujmmxbufs-!NO!66193
UP!UIF!QBSUZ"
EBUF;!Uivstebz-!Nbz!5ui
UJNF;!
Pvs!3134!Gvoe.B.Offe!
Zpvs!tvqqpsu!
jt!up!tvqqpsu!pvs!6.zfbs!
jt!dsjujdbm!up!
pvs!fggpsut"
Nfoubm!Ifbmui!Jojujbujwf!xjui!
Tujmmxbufs!Bsfb!Qvcmjd!Tdippmt/
43 of 43