In the Matter of Town of North Hempstead, Appellant-Respondent,v.County of Nassau, Respondent-Appellant.BriefN.Y.September 10, 2014TO BE SUBMITTED BY: WILLIAM F. OARBARINO, ESQ.DOCKET NO. APL-2013-00253 State of ®em nr Knurt nf Syyeaks H4% In the Matter of Application of the: TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, Plaintiff Petitio-ner Appell-ant Respo-ndent For a Judgment Pursuant to Section 3001 and Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law COUNTY OF NASSAU, Defendant Responde-nt Responde-nt Appellant-. BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF ISLIP ROBERT L. CICALE, ESQ. Islip Town Attorney BY: WILLIAM F. GARBARINO, ESQ. Attorneyfor Amicus Curiae Town of Islip 655 Main Street Islip, New York 11751 (631) 224-5550 Date Completed: February 5, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department, Case No. 2011-09018 Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 6734/11 DICK BAILEY SE R V IC E ( 212) 608-7666 (718) 522-4363 (516) 222-2470 (914) 682-0848 Fax: (718) 522-4024 1-800-531-2028 - Email: appeals@dickbailey.com -Website: www.dickbailey.com TA.BLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................ii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............3 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 5 EDUCATION SECTION 6305 LAW AUTHORIZES COUNTIES TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FOR FIT-RELATED CHARGES FROM THE STATE AND ONLY THE STATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......6 A. Long Held Principals of Statutory Construction Direct this Court to Draw an Irrefutable Inference that Cities and Towns Were Intentionally Excluded From Education aw Sectson 6305(10).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................6 THE ONGOING SUPERSEDURE OF EDUCATION LAW SECTION 6305(10) BY BUDGET LEGISLATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE IMPLIED REPEAL OF EDUCATION LAW SECTIO6305(10). ......10 A. B. Education Law Section 6305(10) was not Enacted by the Same Means as Budget Legislation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....11 There is no evidence that the Legislature Intended to Repeal Education Law Section 6305(10).................................11 Authority from this Court Requires the Court to Find that Education Law Section 6305(10) Remains in Effect....................13 C. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 I • • • • • • • • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGECASES Ball v State, 41 N.Y.2d 617 (1977).......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......11 — 13 Bright Homes, Inc. v 8'right, 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cimo v. State ofNew York, 3 • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • 1 • • • 1 Erie County Agric. Soc. v. Cluchey, 4 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Gallagher v. Regan, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • Hoerger v. Spota, 109 A.D.3d 564 (2d Dep. 2013), aff'd, 21 N.Y.3d 549 (2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......7 Maj ewski v. Broadalbin Perth Cen-t. Sch. Dist., 9 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • Moran v I.a Guardia, 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • Noghrey v Town ofBrookhaven, 214 A.D.2d 659 (2d Dept. 1995)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................10 Paj akv Paj ak, 5 • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • 1 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 I • I • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 N.Y.3d 75 (2004)............................ .........................................11 — 12 Patrolmen's Benevolent Association v. City of New i'ork, 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 People v Mann, 3 Tompkins v. Hunter, 149 N.Y. 117, 123 (1896).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........8 Town of N. Hempstead v County of Nassau, 102 A.D.3d 800, 802 (2d Dept. 2013), lv to appeal granted, 21 N.Y.3d 864 (2013).......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................1, 6, 10, 11 • • • • 0 • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • STATUTES Education Law Section 6305(2).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................3 Education Law Section 6305(5).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 — 3, 5 — 6, 9 — 10 Education Law Section 6305(10)......... ....................................2 — 6, 8 — 14 OTHER AUTHORITIKS 1994 N.Y. Laws, ch. 170 (217'" Session — 1994)....................................7, 11 .Y. Const. art. VII, 7................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........12 Suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 732-2012........................1 Proposed Senate Bill (S7152-2011)................ ........................................4 Proposed Assembly Bill (A10700)............................. ............................4 INTEREST OF TIIE AMICUS CURIAE This brief is submitted on behalf of the Town of Islip ("Islip"), as amicus curiae. Islip is one of ten towns located in Suffolk County, New York. In 2012, pursuant to Education Law Section 6305 (5), the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 732-2012, "Authorizing A Charge Back For The Out-Of- County Tuition."' This resolution, which continues to be in effect, authorizes Suffolk County to charge back to its ten towns a proportionate share of costs incurred by the County for town residents attending community college outside of Suffolk. Charge-backs for costs associated with third and fourth year students and Masters Degree Students attending the Fashion Institute of Technology("FIT") are specifically excluded by such resolution. Islip's interest in the within appeal stems from the determination by the Appellate Division, Second Department that pursuant to Education Law Section 6305(5), Nassau County is entitled to a charge-back from the Town of North Hempstead ("North Hempstead") for amounts paid by the County to FIT for Town residents enrolled in two-year, four-year, and graduate programs. Town of N. Hempstead v County of Xassau, 102 A.D.3d 800, 802 (2d Dept. 2013), lv to appeal granted, 21 N.Y.3d 864 (2013). Should such holding be affirmed, Islip residents, Suffolk County Reso!ution No. 732-2012 is available at the followin~ website: htt://le is.suffolkcount n . ov/resos2012/i1807-12. df. as well as residents of all the other towns in New York, would be exposed to a greater tax burden than was intended by the New York State Legislature when it enacted Education Law Section 6305(10) in 1994 (to be discussed in greater detail below). It is Islip's position that the decision and order being appealed should be modified to hold that Education Law Section 6305 does not authorize Nassau County to charge back North Hempstead for amounts paid by the County to FIT for costs associated with FIT attendance by North Hempstead residents. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Education Law Section 6305(2) authorizes community colleges to charge to counties an "allocable portion of. .. operating costs" which are attributable to attendance by out-of-county residents. In turn, subsection 5 of Education Law Section 6305 allows counties to charge back their cities and towns for such costs "in proportion to the number of students" from those cities and towns who attended the out-of-county community colleges. With the 1994 enactment of Education Law Section 6305(10), the New York State Legislature ("the Legislature") opted to treat county chargebacks for FIT and its unique bachelors and master degree programs — differently than county chargebacks for the other community colleges in New York. Subsection 10 provides, in pertinent part, that "the state shall reimburse each county" for amounts paid to FIT on behalf of those counties' residents. Education Law $ 6305 (10). Unlike subsection 5, subsection 10 does not permit counties to charge back their cities and towns for costs associated with attendance by those cities' and towns' residents. Rather, the sole payor prescribed for county reimbursement of FIT- related expenses is the State of New York. The reasons for the Legislature's disparate treatment of FIT-related charges are absent from the legislative history of Education Law Section 6305(10). One thing that is clear, however, is that Education Law Section 6305(10) has not been repealed, despite proposed legislation to achieve that end.' Proposed bills to repeal Education Law $ 6305(10) are available at the following sites: htt:!/o en.n >senate. ov/le islation/bill/S7152-2011 (Proposed Senate BjH S7152-2011~ ht://assembl .state.n .us/le ?default fld = kbn = A10700kterm = 2011ASumma — YAText = Y (Proposed Assembly Bill A10700). STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED Does Education Law Section 6305 authorize counties to charge back to their cities and towns for amounts paid to FIT on behalf of those cities' and towns' residents? No. Education Law Sect ion 6305(10) mandates that the Stateshall reimburse counties for FIT-related costs. Accordingly, the Second Department erred when it held that Nassau County was allowed to charge back the Town of North Hempstead for FIT-related costs pursuant to Education Law Sect ion 6305(5). A.RGUMKNT POINT I EDUCATION SKCTION 6305 LAW AUTHORIXKS COUNTIES TO SKKK REIMBURSEMENT FOR FIT-RELATKD CHARGKS FROM THK STATE AND ONLY THE STATE In the decision and order being appealed, the Second Department recognized that Education Law Section 6305(10) is a provision "mandating the State to reimburse counties for FIT-related costs[.]" Town of N. Hempstead, 102 A.D.3d at 801-02. Despite such interpretation, however, the Second Department held that the ongoing supersedure of Section 6305(10) by appropriation bills allowed for Nassau County to charge back North Hempstead for FIT-related costs pursuant to Section 6305(5). See, id. Respectfully, such conclusion is error. A. Lo n H e l d P r inci als of Statutor Construction Direct this Court to Draw an I r r e futable Inference that Cities and Towns Were Intentionall Kxcluded From Kducation Law Section 6305 10 As North Hempstead has highlighted in its initial brief to this Court', Education Law $6305(10) provides an exclusive mechanism for the reimbursement of FIT-related chargebacks to counties whose residents attend FIT. The language of the statute bears repeating: See pg. 20 of Brief For Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent, Town of North Hernpstead. On or before March thirty-first, nineteen hundred ninety-five and every year thereafter, the state shall reimburse each county which has issued a certificate of residence for any non-resident student in attendance at the fashion institute of technology during the nineteen hundred ninety-three — ninety-four academic year and every year thereafter in an amount equal to fifty percent of the actual amount paid by such county on behalf of such students and on or before June first, nineteen hundred ninety-five and every year thereafter, the state shall reimburse each county for the remaining fifty percent of the actual amount paid by each such county on behalf of such students. 1994 N.Y. Laws, ch. 170 (217'" Session — 1994). Thus, the New York State Legislature decided that as of the 1993/94 academic year — and for every year thereafter the State should bear the burden of FIT-related chargebacks by counties. This Court has long held, "[Wjhere [aj statute describes the particular situations in which it is to apply, 'an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded[.j'" Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n of City of New York v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 205, 208-09 (1976) (internal citations omitted); Hoerger v. Spota, 109 A.D.3d 564, 568 (2d Dep. 2013), aff'd, 21 N.Y.3d 549 (2013) ("Pursuant to the maxim of statutory construction 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius,' where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded."); See, Paj ak v Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, 397 (1982) ("The failure of the Legislature to include a matter within a particular statute is an indication that its exclusion was intended."). Furthermore, "In construing statutes, it is a well-established rule that resort must be had to the natural signification of the words employed, and if they have a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity or contradiction, there is no room for construction and courts have no right to add to or take away from that meaning." Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. Sch. Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583 (1998), quoting, Tompkins v. Hunter, 149 N.Y. 117, 123 (1896); Erie County Agric. Soc. v. Cluchey, 40 N.Y.2d 194, 200 (1976) ("When words have a definite and precise meaning, courts should not go elsewhere in search of conjecture so as to restrict or extend that meaning.") The definite and precise language of Education Law Section 6305(10) sets forth a clear road map for county reimbursement of FIT-related charges. The statute expressly describes: (1) the particular thing to which it applies (i.e. reimbursement for FIT-related costs); (2) to whom it applies (i.e. New York State, counties within New York State, and non-residents of New York County who attend FIT); and (3) the time period for which it is applicable (i.e. the 1993l1994 academic year and every year thereafter). Thus, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that those who were omitted from Education Law Section 6305 (10), including cities and towns, were intentionally excluded by the Legislature. What is more, the Legislature did not provide an alternative or fallback option for county reimbursement of FIT-related expenses upon non-reimbursement by the State. Had the Legislature intended for cities and towns to pay for the FIT- related costs of their residents in the event that the State failed to do so, it would have provided for such contingency in the statute. It did not. By holding that Education Law Section 6305(5) permitted Nassau County to charge back the Town of North Hempstead for FIT-related costs, the Second Department essentially read an alternate funding provision into Section 6305 which does not exist. Accordingly, based on the longstanding and fundamental principal in New York law that "Courts are not supposed to legislate under the guise of interpretation, and in the long run it is better to adhere closely to this principle and leave it to the Legislature to correct evils if any exist[,]" (Bright Homes, Inc. v 8'right, 8 NY2d 157, 162 (1960)), this Court must reverse the Second Department's determination that Nassau County may demand chargebacks for FIT-related costs from the Town of North Hempstead pursuant to Education Law Section 6305(5). POINT II THE ONGOING SUPKRSKDURK OF KDUCATION LAW SKCTION 6305(10) BY BUDGET LEGISLATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THK IMPLIED REPEAL OF EDUCATION LAW SKCTION 6305(10) In the decision and order being appealed, the Second Department reasoned that because Education Law Section 6305(10) had been superseded by appropriation bills since 2001, "the doctrine of legislative equivalency is not implicated, as both Education Law $ 6305(10) and the budgets were enacted by the same means." Town of X Hempstead, 102 A.D.3d at 801. The court then proceeded to classify Education Law Section 6305(5) as "the statutory mechanism allowing the County to demand [FIT-related] charge-backs I from Town residents]." Id. at 801-02. Based on the foregoing premises, one must conclude that the Second Department either: (a) read an alternate funding provision into Education Law Section 6305 which does not exist (discussed above); or (b) determined that the implied repeal of Education Law Section 6305(10) by budget legislation allowed for Nassau County to charge back North Hempstead for the FIT-related costs of its residents pursuant to Section 6305 (5). Respectfully, an " "The doctrine of legislative equivalency requires that existing legislation may only be amended or repealed by the same means as was used to enact it." ¹g h rey v. Town of Brookhaven, 214 A.D.2d 659, 660 (2d Dept. 1995), citing, Gallagher v. Regan, 42 N.Y.2d 230, 234 (1977); Moran v. I.a Guardia, 270 N.Y. 450, 452 (1936) ("To repeal or modify a statute requires a legislative act of equal dignity and import. Nothing less than another statute will suffice." ). 10 opinion that post-2001 appropriations bills have impliedly repealed Education Law Section 6305(10) is error. A. Ed u cation Law Section 6305 10 was not Knacted 1 the Same Means as Bud et Le islation As an initial matter, the Second Department was incorrect when it stated "both Education Law $ 6305(10) and the budgets were enacted by the same means." Town of N. Hempstead, 102 A.D.3d at 801 (internal citations ornitted). Since 1927, all budget legislation has originated with the Governor while other legislation has originated with the Legislature. Pataki v New E'ork State Assembly, 4 N.Y.3d 75, 81 (2004). Unl ike appropriation bills, Education Law Section 6305(10) was part of a bill that originated in the Legislature. See, 1994 N.Y. Laws, ch. 170 (217'" Session — 1994). Thus, as Education Law Section 6305(10) and budget legislation are not enacted by the same means, it is respectfully submitted that the doctrine of legislative equivalency is implicated in the current dispute. B. Th e re is no evidence that the Le islature Intended to Re eal Kducation Law Section 6305 10 "The doctrine of repeal by implication is heavily disfavored in the law and may be resorted to only in the clearest of cases.' Ball v State, 41 N.Y.2d 617, 622 11 (1977). "In determining whether one statute impliedly repeals an earlier one, the primary and fundamental question to be resolved is what did the Legislature intend." People v Mann, 31 N.Y.2d 253, 257 (1972). "Since repeal by implication is not favored, it will be decreed only where the intent to effect such a repeal is clear." Id. (internal citations omitted). "Such an intent. . . will be clearly manifested by an inconsistency between the statutes which is such as to preclude giving effect to both." Id. at 257-58. "Expressed another way, a more general statute. . . will not repeal a more specific one. . . unless there be a patent inconsistency and the two cannot stand together, so that the 'Legislature is clearly shown to have intended such a result'." Id. at 258, citing, Cimo v. State of New Fork, 306 N.Y. 143, 149 (1953). The lack of appropriation for State reimbursement of FIT-related costs is not the manifestation of an inconsistency between Education Law Section 6305 (10) and post-2001 budget legislation which precludes giving effect to both. Rather, it reflects a choice by the Governor and the Legislature not to fund a previously codified directive, which has been occurring since "long before executive budgeting was adopted[.j" See, Pataki, 4 N.Y.3d at 81. What is more, the effect of an appropriation bill is limited by the New York Constitution to two years. Id., citing, N.Y. Const. art. VII, $ 7. Thus, while post-2001 appropriation bills may 12 have superseded Education Law $ 6305(10) for a maximum of 2 years per bill, they lack the requisite intent and finality to have impliedly repealed subsection 10. C. Au t h o r it f r o m t h is Court Re uires the Court to Find that Education Law Section 6305 10 Remains in Effect The within dispute is not the first opportunity that this Court has had to address whether the failure to appropriate funds impliedly repeals an existing statute. In Ball v. State, 41 N.Y.2d 617 at 621, the Court encountered a similar issue, which it stated as follows: [T]he issue presented is essentially one of legislative action and intent; may it be inferred from the enactment of the 1975-76 budget without explicit appropriation of funds for c la i rnant's salary that the Legislature expressly or impliedly repealed the office of the Chairman of the Bingo Commission'? To this query, the Court reached the following conclusion: By its failure to pass the legislation explicitly accomplishing the result sought by the Governor, or to specifically provide in the budget as finally enacted for the abolition of the bingo commission, the Legislature may be deemed to have expressed an intent not to eliminate the commission or the office of chairman. Ball v State, 41 N.Y.2d at 622. Ball v. State is instructive in this appeal for a number of reasons. Similar to the circumstances in Ball v. State, where the Legislature failed to pass legislation accomplishing the result sought by the 13 Governor, the Legislature has failed to pass proposed legislation' to repeal Education Law Section 6305(10) and permit counties to chargeback cities and towns for FIT-related costs (i.e. the result sought by Nassau County). Coupled with the failure of post-2001 appropriation bills to provide language specifically repealing Education Law Section 6305(10), the Legislature's choice not to pass the proposed repeal legislation is an expression of intent to keep subsection(10) intact. Accordingly, this Court must find that Education Law Section 6305(10 ) is still in effect and controls with regard to FIT-related costs. Proposed bills to repeal Education Law $ 6305(10) are available at the following sites: htt://o en.n senate. ov/le 'slation/bill/S7152-2011 (Proposed Senate Bill S7152-2011); htt://assembl ".state n- us/le '?default fld = kbn =.. 107008cterm =20118cSumm — YAText = Y (Proposed Assembly Bill A10700). 14 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Town of Islip respectfi lly submits that the decision and order being appealed should be modified to hold that Education Law Section 6305 does not authorize Nassau County to charge back North Hempstead for amounts paid by the County to FIT for costs associated with FIT attendance by North Hempstead residents.' Respectfully submitted, ROBERT L. CICALE, ESQ. Islip Town Attorney %ILLIAM F. GARBARINO, ESQ. Attorney for Proposed Amicus Curiae, Town of Islip 655 Main Street Islip, New York 11751 (631) 224-5550 The author would like to thank Anne Danziger, Esq., Senior Assistant Town Attorney, for her rnentorship and guidance in writing this brief. 15 25 Ghapel Street, 6th Floor, Brooklyn, New York, 11201 + vww.DIGKBAILEYcom+ email: appealsodickbailey.com (212) 608-7666+ {718) 5224363+ (914) 682-0848+ Fax:(718) 522-4024 OVERNIGHT SERVICE JAMES LFEHR, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is over the age of 18 years of age, is not a party to the action and is employed by Dick Bailey Service, Inc. That in the case of In the Matter of Application of the: TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD For a Judgement Pursuant to Section 300'I and Article 78 of the Civil Practice I aw v. COUNTY OF NASSAU on Thursday, February 06, 2014 deponent served / copies of the within Bond, Schoeneck 8, King, PLLC, 1399 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200, Garden City, New York 11530 Nassau County Attomey, One West Street, Mineola, New York 11501 by dispatching the paper to the person(s) by overnight delivery service at the address(es) designated by the person(s) for that purpose, pursuant to CPLR 2103(b)(6). upoll Carnell T. Foskey, Esq. Sworn to before me Thursday, February 06, 2014 JAMES LEEHR RICHARD BAILEY Notary Public, State of New York No. 01BA5064330 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires August 12, 2014 87105 ~j h$ C3 CD EDR<~ O I gl C 4 • - cnCd(D- (- m X )m o L c'= > CDm g(D • W R CCL CLCS -Cod c/s E m)- (n (ncn CD- m 0 om c O,CD m ID Cn'- ), CD ca E Id cn vs'0 cn cnc m gs m 0 0 gs O 0 gs 0 cd m m x O CO R h ) 0~ g- c-o ca 0~ ) . In ~ O (D gs (D gl cn ) cnN > - — cn CD ) (d (D CO nCO ).+ 0 mQ I ocnm Cd I L5.~ CL x fA ok CD (s/I CD CD c • =E C) P I ~x O LL CQ Cn gs CO ~ OXI ) CL 4 'I ~ o ~ ~ CD O4 J LI c/s cm LLc(D gcs (DU PC/I CL I ~ cco cn gl ID c/s OI vs ~ O 2 LLI 0 o (D,O-.) CD~ 0 CD r 0 CD cn CA cs (D ccs cn E ) CO - o CCI L j O CD C/ LLI Cd 0 s g' ILl Oco Em CA CD LL I ~ '0 o 0 + z: c( L- c/s • ~ CL gs g CI ID «( E cl CLCC 5'm gs 8 0 • ~ U ID CD CD CL CL cn gl Z ID + CA C$ 0 • ~ 0 CS O CD ~ 4 o gs 0 CD cd (g JD IDQ Og cn cc 0- r~@VP 0 (D CI CD 0 x LU "el gt 'd x CO gg gJ tO CL ™ 4' ~ Cd C/S L ' I y l (D 1J- CD oI0 cs (D s-~ (D N= G9 Pcs CD G2 (D ~ 0 M f/J 4s. A . Q c- cn c/s CO C/I dsQ E O ~ UQ ) gl(D gs mcn U-Wm.vs cd CD (D 05 L LI CO gg (X: - ' s CDm~ ~ CD (D gs v l C:Em CAm cD gs I «d CS gd rn Cd M c O Kl O 0.o ~ cs os g Vt ~ OU0 DI 'd (O.E m c C/I m CD o' O ZJ D ~ 0 OR m ~O CD CO CD 0 C CL Gi C$ CD CO Cr> '"-D «/3 m'P WC 0 cn ~o j 0 gs O CD Cg L Cda o Q 8 q,CD vs JD cn ~ oc- mmE g V 5;( d 0 O .L- C .4 EZZ ID c gl gl (n co' + O~ cs (4I CCI CL /IC CCS 0 p Zo E o ogs CG gs ) -g cd I~OI CD 0 cs) o occb: mE ~ P 8: CD cn o" E C/I o o CD O CL C/I Vl IDmoE (d I cd os -O E (D LL W co ~ O O CD O cn~ .! Agg Cd tQ c4 Cl 0 O 4 o I D (n 6 co I • I + • 4 JJI 4 C~l CC:0 CP,c C c J JIN 4l gi • ~ o CD Vt (D I 0 Cll D il s V3 CD X LLI I J • • I" • J 40 g (L' x 0 o Ci cs gs a m O o I gl 0 ID ID ID cn © E lt o O< E O LS CD cnCD ~ 8~ ~ Mm) Lh~ cng -COO C/l S m ). E CLO Ca m CC m CD '- CO C o Ia CD CL m ) 0 CO '0 M C) CD O.P ) ),m cn cnM nr cn c< m m mmm CI 'M cn ' M x CD ) CO Cg Ng CO ).+ JD Q o k c E ~ cn pq ~rc t) cn m 0 C h+ cn 0~)cn~ o CD IS O) ID In ) In ~ > . = « ) 0~ C V CI ClCO CO CO O CD I ca L th © C/I CL O © ~ 0 ~ ) u C/)'IC0 L5.~ M Oo ~ CD~ m LL I- C/I • ~ cn CD cn$ K CJ CD CD CIJ CD CD CD cn CC) CD ~2 M CD C1 t CD LI CO.CL.) O C) CD CD CD CD C3 CU5 0 CO 0 K m~o ~ m c CD m c/I CDcn E CO 0 CCII j ~ O.m 0 CD CI' "CI O) CCI CS 0 CD /' :=.)m'= IS gy Ll cn CL CL ~O Cn " o CO CD '0 0 ID CC Ogm o) cn m C/I x O) / CD .) ca IS .- Em CD CO ) J3 g o gj O CD m in Cl 40 f/I CL C)f C::0 cn CD cl CD E ) - ~ cn CS 0 CD*c L OOO Cg mW OP2 Ca M.) ~ O I - m CD 'C! g$ CD m CX. 3 o~ P g COD CD- C/) ~ OCl w o m N In = coco . CD cn~ L- E o .O M> I Ia o)cn- CO CO CD ~)'MC: g co ~ CS.E 0) Ol~ O) CL 0 ~O 0 ml cn ) C5 pH g Cbm cn o ox O) CQ cn ~ cn CO cn.E O O) CO CO CL M o 0 LCO 0 CL 0 CS C/) 'jr'"S/1 CD co o 0 g /-..tg IL L L I 0 2 "."/cciiii LL- W m.M C? 00 CO t O) C/) g CJH~ ~ CI CD o'I < "8 CO«C- gg 0 S M D~ o 0 + 0L) V C) ) M M~ I/I CD ~ O.~ .c og .4~ 0 ca m E CD CO M Cn= Pc) ctc C) Ctc Ct) CD E CI cn ~ cnCD m .=~ CDI Q~ o & C 'CO -"M Ca O Cl m CJEC ) ) m O ) 0 CO) CD E CQ tt r • 1 g)i- I:' CD O CL X 0 ) I LL) 0 CD O) o E ~ m > CO I/I CO 0 'el O) CS I \ J I .'.1 M S~ • r CL CL-O E CD ~Z CO N n o ) o Cl O CD CD C3 ca~ m rttrt ftwt I M O) t ' • C) 0 0 C3 ~ D X t r • t ttt t ) • Itttr • tt Cl tD m gg e C) gga g c CD 0 CI V3 G3 •" t rr • ~ O • ~ m gg Cl 05 'm CD 0 0 CD 0 Ccl CD CI LL! t ttt • wntt I ) rrD f„i... o 'co ) t O Ir)) egl C4 ' gl Ln L) + C3