HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2018/01/02 (2)CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Mueller, Gunn, Hull, Meehlhause, Bergeron
PUBLIC COMMENT
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please give your
full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus
1. Liquor Moratorium
2. 35W Sound Wall Logo — Consensus on Logo
3. Compensation Study
Next Work Session: February 5, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.
Next City Council Meeting: January 8, 2018 at 6:30 p.m.
MOUNms VfE—W
Off Sale Liquor Licensing Study/Report —January 2, 2018 Council Workshop
Background:
At their April 11, 2016 Council meeting the City of Mounds View adopted Resolution 8551 that placed a
moratorium for six months on the issuance of any new off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses within the
City boundaries. Additionally, the resolution directed a study to be conducted specific to answering five
questions which were;
(1) Determine the number of off -sale liquor establishments that may locate in the City.
(2) Analyze the relationship between off -sale liquor stores and criminal activity.
(3) Determine if any additional official controls should be used to regulate the sale of intoxicating
liquor.
(4) Determine whether there should be a minimum distance separation requirement between off -
sale liquor stores,
(5) Determine in which zoning district such licensed business may operate.
The moratorium was first adopted on November 15, 2016 and extended (several times) in six months
and on August 14, 2017 the Council extended the moratorium again for a full year.
Since this time we have had at least one request for an additional new license.
Current License Holders:
At present, Mounds View has three licensed Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Stores along with two limited
licenses — 3.2% alcohol content.
AB (C) Liquor — 2840 Mounds View Boulevard (NOTE — Closed sometime October -December 2017)
Merwyns — 2577 Mounds View Boulevard — Approximately 100,000 sq. ft. of floor space.
Vino & Stogies — 2345 County Road HD- Approximately 15,000 of floor space
Super America (3.2%) — 2640 County Road I — Approximately 750 sq. ft. of floor space
Snapp Market (3.2%) — 2408 County Road I — None, awaiting insurance certificate.
Research Conducted:
1. Research and review of applicable state statutes
2. Research and review of Department of Public Safety—Alcohol and Gambling regulations and
documents.
3. Online search using web browser using keywords from 5 study questions.
4. Utilization of League of Minnesota Cities Listserve's.
5. Site visit to each location.
6. MV Police Department Reporting and Crime Data.
Question 1: Determine the number of off -sale liquor establishments that may locate in the City.
Answer— The Governing Body shall determine the number of stores.
Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 340A regulates all Liquor activities in the State of Minnesota with the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Division of Alcohol and Gambling responsible for enforcement.
The Division publishes "Minnesota Liquor Laws and Rules" which details two statutes that apply:
1. Minnesota Statute 340A.405 Subdivision 1. (a) Cities. (a) A city other than a city of the first class
may issue with the approval of the commissioner, an off -sale intoxicating liquor license to an
exclusive liquor store, or to a drugstore to which an off -sale license had been issued on or prior to
May 1, 1994.
2. Minnesota Statute 340A.413 Subdivision 5.0ff--sale licenses. No off -sale intoxicating liquor
license may be issued in any city, except as provided in this section, in excess of the following
limits:
(1) in cities of the first class, not more than one off -sale license for each 5,000 population; and
(2) in all other cities the limit shall be determined by the governing body of the city.
Question 2: Analyze the relationship between off -sale liquor stores and criminal activity.
Answer — There can be, but the answer is situational depending on variables. For Mounds View and
specific to our current licensed establishments there is little evidence of increased criminal activity
associated to off -sale liquor.
Policy issues related to this question:
1. If there is a relationship between crime and liquor stores; what are the measurable impacts.
Mrriiccinn
Research conducted by The University of California, Berkely student Bing-ru Teh in 2007 examined the
relationships between Liquor stores and an increase in crime and urban decay. His findings caused him
to determine that while there was a correlation between crime and property values to liquor stores,
there was no causal evidence. The uncertainty relates to which occurs first. His study was specific to
the opening and closing of stores and for low economic status areas there was an increase in crime.
However, this was related to late business hours which subsequently led to a neighborhood gathering
space and consistent with FBI and Department of Justice crime data findings over decades, there is an
increase in crime where alcohol is present. Conversely, if a store is situated in high economic status rea
the criminal activity did not occur nor was there an appreciable impact on market values.
An internet search of this question finds overwhelming evidence, statistics and research papers that
reinforce the high correlation between alcohol consumption and crime as criminal activity (as well as
non -criminal but societal unacceptable) behavior occurs with consumption. Specific to the issue of off -
sale stores one would have to presume that consumption occurs with or shortly after purchase and in
close proximity. While that does occur in on -sale establishments, there is no apparent evidence that it
occurs in off -sale as a general rule. However, there is evidence that it can be situational specific an
example being the new liquor store in a low socioeconomic area where it becomes a congregation place.
2
Crime data for the three fully licensed establishments (below) provide little evidence of any relationship
between crime and off -sale liquor establishments. Conversely, our two on -sale establishments have,
consistent with national data, a higher incidence of calls for service/crime (200+ yearly Mermaid* and
40+ years Moe's) and more accurately, police response to address behavioral issues. That is to say that
absent police intervention, a situation could escalate from non -criminal behavior to criminal.
Store
2017 All
2017 Criminal**
2016 All
2016 Criminal**
Total
Merwyns
10
2
23
4
33
Vino and Stogies
30
3
20
0
50
ABC
8
1
0
0
8
*Includes American Inn Calls
**Sale to minors, Disturbance, Disorderly, Welfare Check, Narcotics.
Question 3: What additional controls should be used to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquor?
Answer — Researched options include; number of stores, distance between, hours of operation, and
percentage of sales if applicable. Additionally, from the enforcement aspect; increased frequency of
under -age checks, greater presence of patrol, maintenance of property, and ordinances prohibiting
loitering.
Policy Issues related to this question:
1. What lawful controls are available to political subdivisions in regulating off -sale intoxicating
liquor establishments?
2. Do additional controls have measurable impacts to intended goal foundational to imposing
them?
While not duplicative to on -sale, some cities have placed additional controls such as requiring a
percentage of gross revenue to products such as food or memorabilia.
Some cities have retained a population threshold of 1 store per X population and all cities have imposed
hours of operation.
No other controls were found in the Listserve or Internet searches.
Question 4. Determine whether there should be a minimum separation requirement between off -sale
liquor stores.
Answer — This question closely related to question one — how many? More stores will add greater
convenience and market forces will provide maximum choice and lowest price. However, community
perception, failed businesses, and potential for increased crime offset. This question is mostly based in
community needs and should be addressed in combination with question 1. Providing some distance
between the two is presumably desirable by owners and from a policy perspective, prevents a dense
concentration of a single or similar type retail.
Policy issues related to this question:
1. Do more liquor stores result in more competitive pricing thus resulting in greater purchasing
power for the consumer?
2. More liquor stores will, on a theoretical basis, make purchasing of product more convenient for
the consumer.
3. What is the impact on adjacent and nearby property values. (addressed in Question 5)
4. Public perception of community.
Discussion
City code currently prescribes limited separations but more specific to "protected" entities such as
schools and day cares.
The research in this area is wide ranging anecdotally and very limited in the scientific research area. The
City of Edmonton Alberta conducted an extensive community survey (1,295 respondents) specific to this
question (they have a 500 meter (.3 miles) separation. Respondents indicated that if a situation in a
planned shopping area (such as Rosedale, Northtown, etc.) the more the better as it gave maximum
choice, convenience and under market forces —the best price.
If a situation in a downtown commercial or commercial corridor, only 1/3 of the respondents supported
another store "across the street." Just under half of the respondents were satisfied with the current
separation and less than 20% were dissatisfied. The remainder were apathetic.
A survey of city administrators/clerks via utilization of the League of Minnesota Cities list serve provided
little additional information other than reinforcing that it was a local community decision.
Question 5: Determine which zoning districts licensed businesses should operate?
Answer — The council has broad discretion in this area. From a public policy perspective, there is little
evidence that a liquor store would have a significant impact on nearby property values — in certain
situations. if located in a low socio-economic area and allowed to be open late night hours, crime
would likely increase and that increase in crime would be the causal condition to lower property
values. Allowing liquor stores in anything other than B districts would likely result in vocal opposition
from adjacent property owners.
Policy issues related to this question:
1. What impact does zoning have on property values as it relates to off -sale intoxicating liquor
establishments?
2. Public perception of where liquor stores do and do not belong.
Discussion/Findings
City Code Chapter 1105.01 establishes four Zoning Districts; Residential, Business, Industrial and Special
that contain the following zoning classifications;
R-1
Single Family
B-1
Neighborhood Business
R-2
Single and Two Family
B-2
Limited Business
R-3
Medium Density Residential
B-3
Highway Business
R-4
High Density Residential
B-4
Regional Business
R -5
Manufactured Home
PF
Public Facilities
R-0
Residential Office
PUD
Planned Unit Development
CRP
Conservancy, Recreation, Preservation
1-1
Industrial
The current liquor ordinance allows off -sale establishments in B-2 Limited Business District (City Code
Chapter 113.02 Subd. 2), B-3 Highway Business District (City Code Chapter 114.02), B-4 Regional
Business District (City Code 1115.02).
Each section the code provides a clear purpose or definition specific the zoning district/classification
presumably to provide guidance on model urban planning.
11
An internet search specific to impact on property values was disappointing specific to empirical
research. Voluminous anecdotal evidence of cities grappling with decisions to increase the number of
off -sale establishments and local residents opposing over concern in causing a deleterious impact on
their property. The City of Chicago regulates all intoxicating beverage issues via a liquor commission
which acts, when needed — in a judicial mode. One such case resulted in their findings stating there was
a preponderance of evidence that a relationship existed specific to the increase in criminal activity but
conversely, opponents did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance standard specific
to property value impact. The Commission voted to deny but only based on the criminal.
Bing-ru Teh's paper is citied in numerous articles, "hits", other papers specific to this issue as his
research found that in the low socio-economic areas, the presence of a liquor store; because of the
increase in crime, was a disamenity that could result in a devaluation up to 4% of the comparable
market.
5
Do Liquor Stores Increase Crime and Urban Decay?
Evidence from Los Angeles
Bing-ru Teht
University of California, Berkeley
Job Market Paper
This Version: December 11, 2007
Abstract
Liquor stores are a common sight in many distressed neighborhoods. But does the
presence of liquor stores actually cause crime and urban decay — as suggested by
situational models of criminal activity — or are liquor stores more likely to open in
declining neighborhoods? In this paper, I use administrative data on the locations of
alcohol outlets in the city of Los Angeles, merged with detailed incident crime reports
and property transactions, to evaluate the effects of alcohol outlet openings and closings
on local crime rates and property values. I specify an event -study framework to measure
the changes in violent and property crimes just after the opening and closing of outlets.
Both types of crime increase following an outlet opening, with larger effects in the
immediate vicinity of the new outlet. The overall impact of new outlet openings is driven
by effects in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods: openings in high -SES
neighborhoods only have small effects on property crime. Outlet closings have smaller
impacts, on average, although there is some indication that the closing of an outlet in a
low -SES neighborhood reduces crime. A parallel analysis of residential property
transaction values find that outlets located in low -SES neighborhoods are seen as a
disamenity, whereas outlets located in high -SES neighborhoods are valued by
homeowners. Overall, it appears that additional alcohol outlets — especially in lower -SES
neighborhoods — contribute to both crime and urban decay.
t I am indebted to my advisor, David Card, for his invaluable advice and support. I also thank David Autor,
Kenneth Chay, Robert Edelstein, Chang -Tai Hsieh, Jed Kolko, Robert MacCoun, Andrey Pavlov, John
Quigley, Stephen Raphael, Debbie Reed, Emmanuel Saez and seminar participants at UC Berkeley, MIT,
PPIC and SOLE 2006 meetings for insightful comments. Stephen Cauley generously shared his housing
transactions data. David Kurano, George Lamy, Carol McDonough and Scott Wiles were instrumental
during the data collection process. Daniel Sheehan and Lisa Sweeney assisted with GIS programming.
Financial support from the Center for Labor Economics, Institute of Business and Economic Research and
the Public Policy Institute of California are gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed herein are those
of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies. All errors are my own.
# Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley. E-mail: bteh@econ.berkeley.edu
I Introduction
Do increases in alcohol outlet density increase crime? The media and the general
public certainly think so: One CBS 5 Investigates report documented how liquor stores
that stay open late at night in downtown Californian neighborhoods tend to be a
congregation place of gangs, leading to such stores becoming `hot spots' for violent
crime; Another report from the Sacramento Bee quotes Sacramento Police Captain Ted
Mandalla commenting that "people purchase alcohol and consume it close by, and then
they become bold enough to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, or (they) consume
alcohol and become prey". Subsumed within the larger umbrella of rational choice theory,
a criminological theory that fits the above description is Cohen and Felson's (1979)
routine activities theory, which states that crime results from a nonrandom convergence
in time and space of likely offenders (drunkards and/or drug addicts), suitable targets
(other intoxicated individuals or passer-bys) and the lack of able guardians (absence of a
strong police presence).
Is the crime increase brought about by alcohol outlets confined to the immediate
vicinity of the outlet? Or does the increased availability of alcohol also lead to an
increase in alcohol abuse, thereby increasing crime in the broader neighborhood of the
outlet as well? According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics 1998 report, 40% of criminal
offenders report using alcohol during the time of offense, while 60% say they have been
drinking regularly the year before the offense was committed. This suggests that alcohol
consumption may play a role in crime, although the exact magnitude of its impact and the
causal channels through which it operates, if any, remain unknown.
Possibly due to an increased awareness from media reports and growing
frustrations of residents who live close to liquor stores, it has become increasingly
common to see reports in local newspapers of residents uniting to either close down
problem liquor stores or to prevent more liquor stores from opening in their
neighborhood. However, while numerous studies find a correlation between alcohol
outlet density and crime, to my knowledge, no study has shown a causal relationship
between alcohol outlets and crime. Hence, although there is strong evidence that alcohol
outlet density is related to crime, it remains inconclusive as to whether alcohol outlets
themselves cause crime, result in a displacement of crime from surrounding areas, or
2
whether they simply tend to be located in areas that inherently have higher crime rates. In
addition, in part due to a lack of readily available databases, many of these studies rely on
crime data that has been aggregated to either the census tract level or municipality level,
and limit their study to a single decennial census year (a cross-section) and a single
category of crime (e.g., Scribner et al., 1995; Scribner et al., 1999; Gorman et al., 1998).
Another potential impediment is the high costs involved in accessing and using
geographical information systems (GIS) software and its associated spatial databases.
This study uses administrative historical liquor licensing data from the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC), incident crime reports from 1992-
2004 with detailed location information from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
and a database of all residential property transactions in Los Angeles County between
January 1980 and June 2000 from DataQuick, together with census tract demographic
data from the 1990 and 2000 decennial census, to understand the magnitude and spatial
distribution of the effect of alcohol outlets on crime and urban decay.
The variation in the geographical allocation of off -sale retail alcohol outlets over
time is used to identify the causal impact of alcohol outlets on crime and urban decay.
More specifically, I look at the change in the number of violent and property crimes per
square mile per month (from here on to be referred to as the crime density for simplicity)
at varying distances (from 0 to 0.5 miles) away from the outlet 24 months before and
after the opening or closing of the outlet. By limiting the sample to neighborhoods that
experience at least one outlet opening (or closing) during the time frames of the crime
(January 1992 -December 2004) and residential property transaction (January 1980 -June
2000) data sets, this event study (Fama et al., 1969; Binder, 1998) specification estimates
changes in crime density across areas that are more similar to one another than to other
areas in the city. Moreover, I allow for a different time trend before and after the event,
outlet tract specific time trends, and include controls for the number of existing outlets in
the neighborhood, time fixed effects as well as individual outlet fixed effects. While the
original intent was to conduct an event study estimating monthly coefficients following
Jacobson, LaLonde and Sullivan (1993), the noisiness of reported crime data led to the
use of between one and four estimated coefficients to summarize the effect of alcohol
outlet openings and closings over the 49 month interval that I study.
3
While the alcohol outlets that make the news are typically "mom and pop" liquor
stores located in low socioeconomics status (SES) neighborhoods, the liquor licensing
data' I use includes not only liquor stores, but also supermarkets, specialty wine stores,
grocery stores and gas stations. Moreover, a liquor store located in a low -SES
neighborhood is very different from a liquor store located in a high -SES neighborhood in
terms of the physical appearance of the store interior and exterior, their clientele and the
range of products sold. In view of the vast heterogeneity that exists between outlets
located in different neighborhoods, I group outlets by using the average of the 1990 and
2000 levels of median household income of the census tract in which the outlet is located.
I then considered outlets belonging to the top 2 and bottom 2 SES quintiles separately.
One common complaint against some alcohol outlets is that because they tend to
be the only stores open till late at night or even into the early morning hours, they serve
as a neighborhood congregation place for people involved in illicit activities. In addition,
it is common knowledge that different types of crime occur at varying frequencies during
different times of the day. To determine how an entry or exit of an alcohol outlet affects
crime during different times of the day, I split up my crime database into four categories
of equal time intervals.
Assuming externalities stemming from alcohol outlets are fully capitalized into
property prices, we can use the change in residential property transaction prices as a
measure of the costs (benefits) alcohol outlets impose on communities through urban
decay (development). By integrating a difference -in -difference model into a hedonic
regression framework, the marginal impacts of recent (within 12 months) alcohol outlet
openings and closings on the residential property transaction values in its neighborhood
are estimated. As before, I examine the differential effect of outlets in low and high -SES
neighborhoods separately.
Upon the opening of alcohol outlets in low -SES neighborhoods, I find that the
estimated increase in property crime density (number of property crimes per square mile
per month) is much higher than when I considered all outlet openings together. Within
0.1 miles of new outlets in low -SES neighborhoods, property crime density increases as
' Previous studies that examine the relationship between alcohol outlet density and crime (e.g., Scribner et
al., 1995; Scribner et al., 1999; Gorman et al., 1998) do not distinguish between outlets situated in different
neighborhoods.
4
long as there are less than 8 existing outlets in that 0.1 mile radius. Comparing the
estimated percent change in property crime density in areas within 0.1 miles from the
new outlet against that in areas between 0.1 and 0.25 miles away, we observe an
interesting phenomenon: property crime is displaced from areas further away to areas
closer to the new outlet. This suggests that property crimes are `mobile' and are sensitive
to the higher human traffic brought about by the opening of a new outlet. Conversely, the
estimated increase in violent crime density within 0.1 miles from the new outlets is
magnified by the presence of other outlets in the same area. Unlike property crimes, there
appears to be agglomeration effects for violent crimes in low -SES neighborhoods.
When I limit my sample to outlets located in high -SES tracts, I find that new
outlets in high -SES neighborhoods cause property crime density to increase but on the
other hand, appear to decrease violent crime density as well. This is not surprising since
outlets in high -SES neighborhoods typically consist of supermarkets, specialty wine
stores and grocery stores and these outlets will typically attract a clientele consisting
largely of families and wine connoisseurs.
The closure of outlets in low -SES neighborhoods decreases property crime
density in the immediate vicinity of the outlet. There is some evidence, however, that this
decrease in property crime results in a corresponding increase further away. This is
consistent with earlier findings that suggest that property crimes are displaced and are
sensitive to changes in human traffic. The closure of outlets in low -SES neighborhoods
has virtually no effect on violent crime density when there are other outlets around.
In contrast, the closure of outlets in high -SES neighborhoods appear to increase
both property crime and violent crime. While the effect of a closure on violent crime is
mitigated by the presence of other outlets, the increase in property crime density is
magnified by the presence of other outlets. One plausible explanation for this is that the
other outlets that remain after the outlet closure may be located in relatively lower -SES
neighborhoods if the outlet that closed was situated near the edge of a high -SES tract.
Another possibility is the business that replaced that particular alcohol outlet may not
draw as desirable a clientele as the alcohol outlet.
In addition, I find that homes located within 0.5 miles from new outlets in low -
SES neighborhoods sold for between 2 and 4 percent less on average but homes located
5
Public Consultation Survey Summary
~ Insight Edmonton Community:
Questionl :
Of these four example locations, please select all those locations you feel are
appropriate for more than one liquor store to be located across the street from one
another.
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Appropriate Locations formore than one UquorStore to be Located Across the Street
Total
j Percentage
Total
1295
968
100%
75%
_
Big box shopping areas in a suburban setting eg.
Windermere _
Big box shopping areas in an inner city setting eg.i
Oliver Square
806
I 62%
_
Downtown commercial setting eg. 104 St & 102 Ave
503
39%
Commercial corridor setting eg. 97 St & 107 Ave
None of these - Where should liquor stores be
located?
425
234 I
33%
18%
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Appropriate Locations formore than one UquorStore to be Located Across the Street
from oneAnother
—
1400
1200
y 1000
m
968
N
o
806
N S00
—
ar
0
600
E
503
.- 425
Z 400
1
]I
200Ell
0
Big box shopping areas in a suburban Big box shopping areas in an inner city Downtown commercial setting eg. 104 Commercial corridor setting eg. 97 St
setting eg. Windermere setting eg. Oliver Square St 8102 Ave 8107 free
Locations Note: 9295 total respondents
Page 1 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Question2:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: Big box
shopping areas are appropriate locations for more than one liquor store.
Big box shopping areas are appropriate locations for
more than one liquor store
1%
8% oStrongly Agree
8% ❑ Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
12% Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
,.Don't Know
46%
Page 2 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Total ! Percentage
_Total
Strongly Agree - - - --- --
1295 100%
- 319 ---25%
Somewhat Agree
598
46%
Neither Agree nor Disagree
158
12%
Somewhat Disagree
107 8%
Strongly Disagree
101! 8%
Don't Know
12
1 %
Big box shopping areas are appropriate locations for
more than one liquor store
1%
8% oStrongly Agree
8% ❑ Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
12% Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
,.Don't Know
46%
Page 2 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Question 3:
When was the last time you purchased alcohol from a liquor store?
Question 4:
The current Zoning Bylaw requires a 500 m separation distance (equivalent of 2.5
downtown city blocks) between liquor stores. Please rate your level of satisfaction
with the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. Reference: Zoning Bylaw 12800 -
see Section 85 - Major and Minor Alcohol Sales
Total 1 Percentage
_
Total _ —
_ 1295 ':^ 100%
Within the past month
887 _ _ 68%
Within the past 6 months
193 15%
_
Within the past year
96 _ 7%
Never, I do not purchase alcohol
j _ 119. 9%
Question 4:
The current Zoning Bylaw requires a 500 m separation distance (equivalent of 2.5
downtown city blocks) between liquor stores. Please rate your level of satisfaction
with the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. Reference: Zoning Bylaw 12800 -
see Section 85 - Major and Minor Alcohol Sales
Page 3 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Total Percentage
Total --
i _ 1295 j 100% j
_
Very Satisfied
311 j _ 24%
Somewhat Satisfied
302 j_ 2
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
430 ; 3Z/0,
Somewhat Dissatisfied
130 10%
Very Dissatisfied
87 7%J
Don't Know
_ _ 351 3%
Page 3 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Question 5:
If the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks) separation distance between
liquor stores is removed in and around big box shopping areas, what outcomes do
you think could arise?
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Page 4 of 9 Report: CR_4202
I Total
Percentage
Total
12951
1_00%
_
More competitive pricing of liquor products
849
66%
Greater variety of liquor products available
j 67_2
52%
More convenient locations available
633
49%
Increased traffic
-
28%
More alcohol related problems (alcoholism,
dependency, public intoxication)
_ _366
! 319
25%
j Negative influence for children/teens
I 268
-
21
- --%1
Reduced parking availability at shopping locations
257
------------
--- ----
20%
More neighbourhood crime (residential or business)
More
23_3
18% I
Decreased property values
! 221 '
_-1_7%
Other:
105_
8%
None of these (No impact)
72
; 23
6% I
2% I
Increased property values
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Page 4 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Public Online Survey & Stakeholders Survey:
Question 1:
Of these four example locations, please select all those locations you feel are
appropriate for more than 1 liquor store to be located across the street from
one another.
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Public and Public
Stakeholders
[___-Stakeholders
Located Across the Street from one Another
_
Total I Percentagej Total ! Percentage
Total
I Percentage
Total
1 2391
100% 198
1 100%
411
100%
Big box shopping
166
69% 139
70%
27
66%
areas in a suburban
160
t, Stakeholders
setting eg.
140
139
Windermere
120
7D%
116
Big box shopping
132
55%
116,
59%
16
39%
areas in an inner city
100
setting eg. Oliver
—
w
a
Square
75
--j
E
Downtown
81
34%
75
38%
6
15%
commercial setting
i
29%1
40
— - - -
eg. 104 St & 102 Ave
-
--- -
27
I
Commercial corridor
63
26%
58T 29%
51 12%
setting eg. 97 St &
0
121 D —
15%- ' 1p
107 Ave
.4
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Page 5 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Appropriate Locations for more than one Liquor Store to be
Located Across the Street from one Another
204_-
193
180
® Public
160
t, Stakeholders
140
139
a
120
7D%
116
v,
d
f
100
%
—
w
a
80
75
--j
E
Z
60
38% 1 58
i
i
29%1
40
— - - -
-
-
--- -
27
I
20
66%—
16 i
6 5
39%
0
121 D —
15%- ' 1p
.4
Big box shopping areas in a
Big box shopping areas in an Downtown commercial setting Commercial corridor setting
suburban setting eg.
inner city setting eg_ Oliver eg. 104 St & 102 Ave eg. 97 St & 147 Ave
Windermere
Square
Locations Note: 998 Public and 49 Stakeholder respondents
Page 5 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Question 2:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: Big box
shopping areas are appropriate locations for more than one liquor store.
Public: Big box shopping areas are appropriate
locations for more than one liquor store
N Strongly Agree
B Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Stakeholders: Big box shopping areas are
appropriate locations for more than one liquor store
10%
24%
7%
Page 6 of 9 Report: CR_4202
❑ Strongly Agree
❑ Somewhat Agree
j Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Public and PublicI
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
_ _
Total Percentage Total Percentage
Total
Percentage
Total
239 100% 198 100%
41
100% I
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
83 35% i 731 _37%
701 29%--"-- 56 28%
17 7/0 o 14 7/0 0
10
14
3
24%
34% -
7%
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
-- - — ---- -
Somewhat
27
11% 23 12%
4
10%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
41
_ __
17% 31 16%
10
___
__-24%
Don't Know
1
0% , 1 0%
i 0
0%
Public: Big box shopping areas are appropriate
locations for more than one liquor store
N Strongly Agree
B Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Stakeholders: Big box shopping areas are
appropriate locations for more than one liquor store
10%
24%
7%
Page 6 of 9 Report: CR_4202
❑ Strongly Agree
❑ Somewhat Agree
j Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Question 3:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: The currently
required 500 m separation distance between alcohol sales establishments creates
an unfair condition in the marketplace.
(�
Public and
Stakeholders
Public
Stakeholders
f
I Total Percentage
} Total
j Percentage
Total Percentage
Total
239 i 100%
1_198
- 100%
j 41 j' 100%
Strongly Agree
52 �� 22%°
1 46
I-------23%-----
6
Somewhat Agree
- -
( 41 17%0
-
1_ 37
1 19%
41 10%�
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
_
°
23 1 10 %
I 19
°
, 10 %
°
1 4 C 10 j
Somewhat
Disagree
37 15%
33
f 17%j
4 1 10%
Strongly Disagree--
---
77 32%-)
-----�
5411_____27%
—
1_ 56%°_I
Don't Know
- -----
9 j -4%j
-
91
—
5% (
I
—23 -------
0 j 0%
Question 4:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: Edmonton's
suburban liquor store marketplace can handle the operation of additional liquor
stores.
4
Page 7�of9 � �� � Report: CR_4202
Public and
i Stakeholders
j Public
` Stakeholders
j Total
I Percentage
; Total
; Percentage
Total
Percentage
Total
1 239
100%
i 1981
100%
4.11
_1.00%
Strongly Agree
��53
_
�� 22%1
471
_
24%1
6
15%
Somewhat Agree
I 57
i 24%
j 521
_
26%j
5
j 12%
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
g
(
37
r
( °
1 15 /°
f
29
C
°
15 /0
-i---�
8
°
20 /o
Somewhat
Disagree
31
I_
13%
231
12% I
8
2007/0
Strongly Disagree j
431
8% j
341
17%
9j
s
-22%
Don't Know 1
18
8%
13 ,
7% j
5
12%°�
4
Page 7�of9 � �� � Report: CR_4202
Question 5:
Level of satisfaction with the current 500 m separation distance between liquor
stores
Question 6:
Please indicate what you think of the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks)
separation distance between liquor stores by choosing one statement to identify
the statement that most closely matches your opinion
Public and
Public
1
Stakeholders j
Stakeholders
Total
Percentage--- - - -- - ----- - - -,
Total Percentage Total Percentage
Total
239
100%
198 "
100%
41
100%
FVery Satisfied
66 I
28%j
51 �—
26% E
15 1
37%
Somewhat Satisfied
39
1_6_°_/° f
j_ -
15% [
_
9 ;_
22%
Neither Satisfied nor!
1
47 c
_
20%
_3.0
43
22% t
4
10%
Dissatisfied
acceptable
—-------
Somewhat
43;
18%
35 1
18%
8
20%
Dissatisfied
44%
balance
;
—_—
Very Dissatisfied I
43 ]
18%
38_
19%° _i
5 j
12 %
Don't Know
1
_
0%
1
1 % !
0
22%
Question 6:
Please indicate what you think of the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks)
separation distance between liquor stores by choosing one statement to identify
the statement that most closely matches your opinion
Page 8 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Public and
Public
1
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
Total i
Percentage Total Percentage Total
Percentage_
Total _—_
239 `__
- -100%=
198
100% -
41
1000/0
Too stringent -
lesser separation
85 ;
° ;
36 /o j
71 i
°
36 /o
7
o
17 /o
distance is
acceptable
—-------
-
---------)
-i
Achieves a good
-----------------i--
91
38% !
68
34%
18
44%
balance
—_—
Not stringent
j
enough -greater
r 63
26%
44
22%
11
27%
separation distance
required
Page 8 of 9 Report: CR_4202
Question 7:
If the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks) separation distance between
liquor stores is removed in and around big box shopping areas, what outcomes do
you think could arise?
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Page 9 of 9 Report: CR 4202
Public and
Public
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
I Total
j Percentage Total I Percentage Total-
Percentage1
_ _
Total
239
100%
198
100% !
41
100%
More competitive
(
j
pricing of liquor
146
61% j
125
63%
21
51%
products
--
More alcohol related
---
— - -----
—
j
problems
(alcoholism,
78
I 33%
63 j
32%
151
37%
dependency, public
j
intoxication
More convenient
locations available
115
° I
" 48/°
98 (
49%
17
41
More neighbourhood
crime (residential or
72
30% !
57
29% I
15
37%
business)
I
----- -
j °
5 /0
---------
11
------
°
6 /o
0
°
1 0 /o
Increased property
- -
11
values
!
Decreased property
55
23%1
401
20% j
151
37%
values
Increased traffic
7011
29% j
55 j
28%
151
37%
Greater variety of
i
1
liquor products
1241
52%
111
56%
13
32%
available
Reduced parking
availability at
56
23%1
481
24%
81
20%
shopping locations
—----------
—
Negative influence !
I
80
------------'-
33/o ° �
---- ------
59 (
° (
30/
21 1
51 °
/o
for children/teens
I
None of these (No
14
�—
6%
11
6%
3
7%
impact)
I
-
Other:
231
-------
10%
— ----
171
-
9% 1
61
15%
Note: Respondents provided the opportunity to select multiple answers
Page 9 of 9 Report: CR 4202
A
L-
0 O
_2
J O
N N
CO
O
W
U)
C
N
U_
J
w
U
U
—
J
J
U
W
•a
O)o
U L
Q
�
CO C.0
Cf)
CYO
�_oo
n
C
U
4)CDN
NLO
CA
a`)
L
m Lf)
a c
z
C-0
N
O
Z
t`
U-3 U)
O C
LLO 2 �
ti
ch
L
o
N
O
C6 Z
O
Q'
J
�
a>
Ofl-
Q
< =3
Q
o
>
a U)
L
(6
NU
Y
�
J
OO N
LLS
N
N
S
�M O
a) O
O`
O
O
N
CO
a)
co
c
in
c6
� aa)i o
c rn
CA (n 06
C m
c6
O,
Z
O
U
O Cq co
U -0 N
Lc") U
Z
— E
o
Q)
C a
a)
O
N
N CC7
[b CJ
U)
'
j
-�
Z
2i
C
cr-
m
C6
_
•a,
>
c
w
J
Z
a
(3)
o U
_C
U
O D U (6 C
C C6 ccs
UJ
a)
s� —72
C
O—s
cn
Y
J co C6
C m
'o z� -C-
W
r--
ti
E O
d- co
� a) m
ti
O
O d-
a ti
U .U) cl)
N
-1
Cf L
[I] O a) 6J
70
cG
O CA (6
� O
O;
N
.2-o
a)
a)
>
._ a
O
O
CCL
]
Q
O -E
CQo
m-
e
SiT
N
Uca4))
QfC)
i
co u5
Nco
O = O E
'�i
O
CA
Lo
-
ON
Qt — ,-
a)
a) o
a
Z
u)
7L0
a
Q
u)
U) o
a) - ai
�
c
�
w
cA
0
Q
-1c
--i cu u)
Cn
i
c
I
N
coto
N7
P
co
1�
P
00
N
tND
O
(D
to
W
P
5
®®
M
N
O
Ie
�ryi
P�
P
N
P
O
N
1'-6)
Pi
O
®
P
O
M
P
P
co
P
P
-
2�
3
to
P
A
`O
I�
(D
PIA
A®
A
A
P
to
NN
�•)
0
0
P
N
1,
I®
M
e-
(D
Fti
f�
A
r
W
O
6)
S')
co
X
t`
(D
to
I�
to
d
m
P
to
N
d'
I
M
W
N
eA
M�
P
et
r
v
W
M
P
N
P
M
w
N
0
N
f
N
W
N
M
N
N-
N
N
N
>
EA
44}
40}
(01
6-?
tp�
61),
69
0.
4Fp
4A
cfD
4%
OF
H}
6%
4s
617,
Gr+
44
Ef3
EF, @
I
C �
o
Eco
>
IV
V-
P
O
O
M
NT
00
N
W
0
N
P
W
N
N
N
r-
O
O
3 P
1- .E
1) 0 E
1`
N
W
to
W
O
N
W
6)
ep
d
eS
7
W
W
W
X
fV
O
(0
N
OO
�
�
OB
00
t®
6i
($
4F3
4fl
40
40
to
40
tp�
V�
Efl
4044
40
EA
40
Vf
Eo
40
40
44
4A
40
0
69
O
�9
0
0
0
o
01
p0
0
o
0
0
0
0
'0
0
o`
o
O
N
W
eP
co
t9
Q
Cl)
M
to
W
to
(D
W
N0-0
P
I to i
co
N
O
l6D
M
A
N
t�
Q
(D
00
OP
(D
W
N
N
N
to
N
aQ
1
0Q
0B
6V
�
I
ANNI-
MI,-
(,1
0)
Cgvt
M
I-
v
N
M
tom
WMN
a)w
C.-)
Y
6D
®
W
W
am
(o
A
W
0)
I�
W
A
W
M
M
W
tfis
(V
P
(D
0R
03
L
O! I6
N
CO
to
M
P
P
WO
M
��pp
A
O
(o
(O
Y�
W
M
W
N
N
I-
CO
to
l4
(D
b
w
w
to
e!
M
N
M
e}
ti
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
C
Q (ii
4A
4A
EA
4�
4f!
61-613,
4A
4A
6%
6%
0
0
CO-
4f$
41�
49
49
4A
(fl
4A
6q
Ito
i1
L
min
MIMOA
AOIOW
wI-
AN0
I-
Oie
I- a
(�
6D
P
to
P
I-
00
to
to
P
M
O
eT
O
W
O
C O) B
0)
eJ
tD
00
W
00
14
M
d'
co
d'
co
co
co
�
N
00
N
co
N
I-
N
00
N
I-
N
M
N
(V
N
00
P
0J
LO
®
7 :(j
Ef3
4f3
4A
Cj�
(f8
4FP
6%
6%
61*
6%
CO
C4
49
6%
6%
0.
4fi
64
co
o0
0
o
O
('Q 7o
�+
o
O
O
o ��
o
o
\
0
0
s
\'
o
P
W
co
N
'T
A
M
N
co
N
P
to
®1
I--P
to
N
T
co
I.-
P
(D
W
A
i'-
to
(D
A
6)
e-
m
O
M
to
(O
co
tD
IL
M�Cj
DD
N
i
®
N
00
®
P)
i
�
d
0
M
I,-
WIN
Ia
P
N
V I
ie
O
W I
W
(D
0
W
N I
A
0
1-
(1)
I�
Y
(�
A
(D
�
w
N
v
w
v
A
m
f*
lD
A
(D
P
A
P
M
M
N
N
NN
(D
P
(O
OM)
4FJ
6),
6%
N
4*6%
0
N
0
�
4FF
6%
Q
6%
CG
E
I
s
3
v
3
a
E
Lo
O
W
O
W
(D
1*
114
P
V
W
00
Nt
d'
'it
V
W
P
N
N 9
Ol
M
le
I-
P
W'1
W
M
P`
00
CO
d
to
CO
I-
P
Ie
i-
1�
P
W
P
t(i
O
C
�'
ui
(0
00
60
P
I�
I�
(!�
tV
(9
N
6
CV
0
(V
6
6
e�
.a
40,0Ei?4f3E>34fiM
E,316%VA4Fi6%060?4A400M4A0(itfJ
-
64
:3
go
U
�
�
o
y
�
•.��
yul4.
�
�
t.,
�
.p
R
'�
�
4)
iD psi
Fa
0
O✓
v,
U
�w'b
spa
U
v1
N
CO
o
O
O
O
q
O�'�
0
�+
O
9
O
O'I
...
O
o
04�
��'
O
5
•
.O
�
u
�
4y
5a•
ca
O
u
ej
m
U
O
O
U
Ua
m
pu
P'4
P���m4aa
P4
P.[
M r Q Lfl,
O .= O M Cl) Cl) P to O M M c= CO M M O �• M M r P CO Q N
9 o r P P P to M M M afl M N N P N P r N r N P
CM
V
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
o
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
C
0
(
0
O
0
O
0
C
0
O
0
C
0
O
0
0
o
O
0
O
-
O
r
r
r
N
CO
CSI
00
M
r
M
M
m
eq
N
M
Cl)
M
M
M
M
O
to
M
O
t;)
Q
M
DD
Cl)
M
Lq
N
d'
M
to
O
O
-
IM
epi
MMM
MIM
MMM
MIM
M
M
M
M
M
MIM
M
M
M
f�6 9C
M
a'
M
M
CO
(D
M
M
r
Lf)
N
09
O
M
t9
CO
t9
fo
60
Cl)
r
Cb
M
®t
CO
P
O
P
to
P
O
P
O
Q
Q
M
O
CO
r
�*
CO
P
e
o
O to
O
te)
tei
P�
CV
V
00
te)
Mai
M
M
N
M
N
N
N
PN
NM
N
N
N
�
X
�--" Q ^� M
P
d}
tel
EA
LLf)O
to
to
te)
to
�
to
tp
64
Cl)
Eo
M
bq
to
to
t`P')
to
Eo
EA
to
to
to
H3
to
to
to
EA
t93
�
I
to
R � P
E
M
fo
M
to
00
M
M
M
"�'
r
09
00
to
Q
CYl
O
P
0®
O
to
t0
� M
C4 t 8
X
Q!
e6 X
tQ
to
to
tel
to
to
to
to
to
61'
Eo
644")-
to
to
Eo
4
Eo
Eo
Eo
�?
Eo
E9
Efi
!A
E9
to
to
co
O
Pe
P
0
0
0
0�0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
®
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
O
r
M
0
v
0
to
0
tp
0
M
Q
N
O
D
Q
aT
O
O
Q
N
O
O
0
O
0
r
0
M
M
CO
0
6)
M
P
M
t7)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
r
N
r
r
d%
G�
m
to
CO
d'
tq
CO
lb
V
tfi
V
to
M�t
d•
M
r
M
r
M
M
P
M
M
LO
N
O
M
v
r
v
CO
v
r
r
co
Q
r
r
M
N
M
to
P
m
00
to
M
tel
CO
to
M
tf)
te9
-e
C
l'
CM
M
to
M
M
M
N
�'
to
cM
CV
M
c^
M
t,
N
C)
N
I'.
N
['Z00
N
N
to
N
®
m
to
N
M
N
1-0
N
I- > ED U)
Ef}
to
t.3
Eo
to
64
Eo
to
if}
to
to
to
to
tf}
to
to
K}
to
to
Eo
to
to
.FO..
d d
e> ��PC>
IC
ow
0w
omMtooe
roarMroM�
N
to i
CD
P
d'
Co
to
Co
r
N
M
0
to
N
0
N
to
0
to
WM
S
N
�
0
(D v
m
tV
N
N:16
r
to
M
r
4
r
Q-
66
6
CO
l�
6
to
to
M�
�
•d
S
F- > Ui
to
to
M
to
to
to
to
tn,
ao
M
to
M
Eo
M
Co
M
C-9
to
M
6n,
M
E9
M
v).
N
(0>
N
to
N
to
N
to
N
to
N
to
N
FA
N
ER
N
Eo
P
Q
�
I
�
0
[0
0
CO0
M
0
P
0
0!
O�
0
C
Q
0
0
N
o
<D
0
0
�'
0
to
t
0
0
r
0
0
�•
I
0
0
to
0
P
0
0
r
0
0
O
0
0
r
0
0
r
0
0
0
0
N
0
M
0
0
N
0
0
�
o ®
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
"I•
CM
l4'
d'
M
a
Cl)
M
co
M
M
M
co
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
b
V im O S
O
M
O
CO
t-
N
to
d'
CO
CO
r
I00
r
PLO
P
P
N
�•
N
6)
to
M
..mv.-
o .�
Ql
tO
to
M
to
d'
M
d'
C)
{*
00
M
N
P
O
®
to
CO
Q
to
P
C'
r
"'
M
t9
O
M
N
tq
a
M
0
co,
00
M
N
CV
P
do
Q
CV
C
LO
N
y
I
�U
N 3 li
E Cl)
3Ei
> O
lO
O
M
O
d'
r
O
M
r
P
O
P
'�'
M
Q
M
P
lei
O
to
N
P
P
N
O
O
O
N
M
M
M
N
M
N
r
Q
Oo
v
N
M
M
M
t0
M
N 3 s EN
N
CO
N
O
M
P
w
C9
to
N
6V
N
M
r
tTi
M
6S
3
to
E9
to
Cfl
to
Eo
to
cfi
64
69
tf}
to
to
Es}
c}3
6i
d9
Eo
to
to
to).
to
�.
i
C�
c9
U
I
•R
�
d
C7
G
Cl
' V
�
•U7
,�
ao+
c)
ca
ai
yam„
cue
�'
U
Q
®
e
•'�
CO)
'o
IV
'O
41
�
m
0 I
m i
A
4 P,
d
44
r2
4
(3,
r
�
M r Q Lfl,
O .= O M Cl) Cl) P to O M M c= CO M M O �• M M r P CO Q N
9 o r P P P to M M M afl M N N P N P r N r N P
CM
V
i Ln
N: ri: tD: to N: ri: N: N: q: -: Ln N: tD: tD: Cr: tD: tD: N: O: Ln : O: n
(0 D.
[F ; N ' OR ' OR ' n ' ct' ; O ' n • tD ' Ln 01 ; Ln ' tD ID ' to ' tD ' to ' O ' Ct • r -I
O W
}
N'^�tD�W 00�rM Ln ()�tD�W 00; CF:Cf''0) N'(n'M 0;00: M;00'tD
1-
n: Ln LA. Ln: R: -: M. M: M: tt M. M' M: N: M: N: N: M. N. M. N: N
V)
in: V-)-; V^: V)-' i/)-; V)•; Vl-: in: i?; V).; V)-: in: in.; V)-; V)-; V)-; V)-; in
L
LA
Cl
O: Ln: ri: ri: 00 t: n: M: r -I NLn ' r- 00' N' 00' 00' 01' n' O' 00' n
@
O
00, co. O: O. N: N: N: n: 00: N: N: r•i: 00: ri: 00: r -I: ri, O: ri: R: M 00
a
O W
00:.. 4 .: 1D: ri: M: r-�:.4 .4 tD: M: N: 00: O: 00: 00: 01: n: ri: tD: d'
F-
M V)
tD: Ln' LA' LnM' M' M; R' M; M' M' N' M' N' N' N' N' M' N' N
in•. VI•: in: V^: V1-: V?: V)-: 4J)-: VL : V}-. V)-: iR
L M
O
00: 01: n: n: Ln: I-: N: Ln: r-,: 01: ti: cn ri: O: O: O: O: tDLO: tD
(O
ri �' r•i' ri 00' O' VL' n• im 00' M' d'' r -i' n' N' n' n' Ln n' n' Ln' Ln
d
O W
}
Ln : t-1 : ri : ri : cn : 0) : ri : L() : N : ri : R* ; ri : r -I : tD : 0) tD tD N : Ln ' cn ' Ln ; M
I--
W Ln: Ln: Ln: d : M: M: M: M: -zT: M. M: M: N: N. N. N. N: N: N: (14. N
N V)
.N.: V).: 4j-V),:.N,: i/}; in.:.N.:.V}; in.: {A.: Lf: 4^: 4A.: iR: V)-: i/}: V).: i/).; V?; ih: vi-
i Nw
M: M: M: r•I: O: n: W W M' 00' 00' r1 00' e-1' r•I' M' ri' 01' R* Ln
(0
O
M: tD; M: M; -:t:01; n; n; r -I; Ln -; ID: M: N: In: N; N; O; M: O; ri: N
CL
O W
ri: 00: 00: 00: ri: tD: Cl: M: ri: 01: N: C1: c1: Ln: n: LA: LA: t0:.4: 00:.: N
ri N
W 'd" R* q' d" M' N' M' M' M' M' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N
44-: Vi: Vl: tR: Vl: Vl: 1^ V}; V): V?: V}: VJ: 4^ Vj: V�- 4A.: 4^ q^: Vi -
V): Vj: V):
N
O
0
L
� �
N
�
Ln:p:cis,r.101'ri;01'1�'M'p'O0'e-i;N'I,;tD'1�'1�'ID;O;tD'M;QI
N: 01. 01' ri: 00' 00: n: N: d : :t: 00' Ln: qt n: ty C} : N' cD. N: , Ln
a
O
O W
O
n
'r
Q1:N":tD:W:O:Ln:00:N:C:00:ri:00:00:4:CD tt:R*:Ln:M:I-'Mi
Ln; Rt d : [t; q: M: N: M: M: M: M: N: N: N: N, N: N: N; N: N: N: N
i
F-
tD
. V}' V).' }. tA: V}' V>' V}' Vl-' in�' �' Vl-
V}Vj-' V}V V
a
ri
00
n: 00: 00: n: M: N: 00: ri: R*: N: M: Ln: M: Ln: M: M: O: 00: 9*: N: Ct
>`
L -D.
' N' ' ' tp' ^' M' ^' ^' Lf! OR OR �' ^' 01
' q' ' MLM
p' ^' �' �' O' ^^
(B
W
n: Ln: Ln: Ln: oo: zT oo: r -I: 01; n: O: n: n: M: Ln: M: M: R; N: tD: N: O
D.
V) F-
LnM' N' M' N' M' M' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N' N
V)
V1•; V�; V�; V?: i/S ; V�: V�; in ; V�; �: in•; V1•: V?: t/?: V�: V�; tn•; V�: -cn: in; Vl-: V?
L
O
O.
NQ
W: W: W: W: W: W: W: W: W: W; W: h: F-: H: F-: f-: H: F-: F•: I--: I-: i-
:0'0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0
00
\
W
rq
N
r -I
i
f0
ri. CD;
0
01 ^. 0: @' �. V. 0.
'
OrL
V). L' V' O' O. U' 4-
ri . 'L7 . C
CL
++
W,::
roM. 6>:U 3: moOO0C)
�p:
Q.U'0jL.0." 41,
O ++. —VLA
cu:_�++O:0:�Q41: +=
cu a
•O:
0): �: 3: 3. U: +'. 3: O: L. O. O: O. �: (u. m. 0). O
m
z
cv; a; D.; ii; o; a; x; m; Q; U; m; W; a;
C
CD:
M: M: M: ^: k: 0: OMj: M: N: M: 0: Cn: (n R*: Cnj: QM rii: n %DD: W N
O
n: n: n: Ln: Ct: M: M: M: Ln: M: N: N: ri: N: ri: r -I: N: ri. N. ri: ri
a
€
€ €€
rn
f\:
N: ri: lAi N 0: lD
00i
tD:
lD:
In:
N:
d'i
rn
00 V)
0)
to
ri
r\ ; 00 : r\ N ; O ; N r, to ;
ri
L
lD
lD
r\
0)
O
O Q
m
00
: ri
4:
00 : V i V1 i^ i 00 i (3) i 0) i 0) i
00i
n:
M
n : i
N i
O
V)
N O
VI:
L}
Ln:
; L} i
tn:
LT:
V; M; M: M; N: N: Np N;
LT : LT : LTi LT: LTi LTi LT : LT :LTi
N:
N:
in:
N:
LTi
N:
An,
N:
LTi
N:
in:
o_
x
i0
�-
N
lDi
rii
lD;
Ni d': Ni �i Ni �i Ln lDiw
N
w
of
r\ NE Ln Oia-1 N
d
0:
N:
0':
^: O: r,: N: O: �° O: o:
O:
0:
O:
L:
4:
�: R* �: O: �: Q1
M
O
�,
W
10
: rte :
o
: 06 i 6 Cil : 6 LA N i M i O) i
Q1
: 0
: Q1
: V i
00 :
10 : N : 06:: 06:: Mice
nj �
X
m
cr
r-
N
In:
ihi
Ln:
V}/}
i
Ln
ii'�?i
d': Mi Mi q: Mi Mi Mi Ni
A: An: A/)-: LTi V?: LF::
Ni
Mi
Ni
ilii
Mi
V?i
Ni
VFi
Ni rte: Mi Ni tti M
i/?i V)_i L>•i V?i i/}i L?
M
i/}
C
Ln
CJ)
rii
LM
_1
00:ri:MNin:NiCD: 00:00:
01i
00:
chi
00:
ni Oi Ln: r,: 'T r,
O
O:
M
O?
N i 00? N N N? 00: a -i
ei?
O
e'i?
00?
Q)i
00? 00 Ni: r -i? N? ei
OO
W
4::4
-4
6 -4 r:ivseri:6 r4io6:o6:6:o6
rn
6:
v:oo:L:r� 4::M
M
H
V)
Ln:
LTiLT:LTiLT:tn:An:LTiL};L).:L?:L};
lniLn:cn:Mich:m
m m Ni
Ni
An:
Ni
L?:
Nim
LT:
LT:
Fj
LT:
NiLo: m r4i *:M
LT: LT: L?: LT: i/T: LT
41H
O
L
M
O
r\i
0)i
r\i
Ln i r, Ln: a)S Ni Oi �i Oi
Oil
Di
Oi
H
lD:tD
00: cti fir
4.
r•I
? 00 i O) ? r� : 00 ? Ln N ? r, rte :
1� ?
t/)
1� ?
e -I :
V) ?
)A ? a -i ' M ? r� : O ? V
a f6
�.
W
ri
i M : N : N i ri : ri : Ql : 01 : lD :
l0 :
t\
: lD :
ri :
lA :
M : to : 'Ch 11') 01 : ri
N
I
Lr,
Ln i
Ln:
d i M: Mi Cti Mi N: N: N:
N:
N:
N:
M:
N:
N: W:: M: N: M: M
C
V)
LT: LT i LTi vi.: i?: LT:
U Q +'
u)
Ln N
L
N
00Mi
Mi
MiH
1*: 10: ID: r\i 00 0):-4:H
Mich
00:
1*
Ln 10: Mich 0i 00
4
E E
N
4.
O
M
lO i
M
et A i X i Ln rte ; Ln O N
N
O
N
M
H
N p to M 01 ? ID
m m
W
W
i 00i
00:
rii rii Mi Qli Qli r, oo Ln
Ln i
to.
Ni
Q);
a'i
Ni ri i Ni chi lOi Q)
++ w
I
didpa;�iM:M:M:N:N;N;N;N;N:N:N;NpN:W
M: N:M:N
in O ++ Q.
e -i
Ln
LT:
LT:
LT:
LT: LT: LTi LTi V).:: LT: L?: LT:
L}:
LT:
L}:
LT: LT: LT: L?: LT: LT
O
U o W
Ln
Ln
N
ri : O r 1 01 M N : O : 01 : CDS 10 : n : n : ID : r,: N M 0) Ln 00 o ri ri
41
C
ri
�
01 :
N :
01
: ri i N : n : � ; OO p t\ : N : d.:
� g
N ;
V i
V) i
chi
V) i f\ : V p w i 00 : 00
O
0•
O
w
N
w
Op O: N: COE 00; to: N cT;
�:
Vli
d':
o0:
M;
rii mi H M; Ln 00
H
Mp M; Mp W Ni Ni N
N:
N;
4:
N;
N;
N; tni Mp N; Mi N
lD
V)
LTi
LTi
L?;
Lf; L}: LT: LT: LT: Lf: LT: V).:
LT;
i/T;
L}: LT: LT: LT
00
ri
O
00:N
00:
r\: ri OOi V): d'iM
M
Op
M;
Ln
N:C1E
chEN 00:M M
O.
'd' :
f\ p
Ct
: Q1 i M i n p N i O i a1 i a' : n i
f\ i
)A :
r, i
tO i
f\ i
Q1 p Q1 : to : OO p f\ i 01
O
W
Ln i
toi
Ni
00 4m: i: r\i 00: Lniw m
:
Vi
m
i
N
: r,: O:N: ehiN
{j
Ni M: rn: Ni NS NS N:
N:
N:
N:
NS
N;
N; V1: M; Ni M; N
VI
i/}i
i/}i
L}i
Lfi LTi LTi LTi LTi LTi LTi LTi
L?i
LTi
LTi
i/}i
LTi
LTi LTi LTi LTi LTi LT
t\
00
{'
-1
OE
ME
O):
OE of 0i 0i d'i ME N: rte:
OE
Oi
NE
LO i
O'
r\?
N
N:
rq:
O:
rq: 00: ^: NS MS M: �:
O:
O:
�:
�:
o:
r*'
00 :
ri :
01
.:
: 00 : R E 4 : -4 : CO : 00 : 01 : 00 i
r Z :
r\ :
00 :
n i
.:
N :
00 i
W
Ln
Ln
':
ttE M: ME ME NE NE Ni N:
NE
Ni
NE
N6
N:
ri:
Ln
V
LT;
LTi
L?;
LT; LT; i/T; i/?: i/?: i?: i?i i/?:
i/?;
iA:
LT;
LT
LT;
LT;
V) -
OC
yi
C? :
C:
Y:
(0.
C.
>i m: C• Cg (n
(oi
Y:
O:
O:
L:
m: E. CD; a•
Si
10:
Yci•Li
y
ccam'
i0:
Z
V)S Oi mi O1p
Ni N O:
C:
d:
C:
Y:
O: Ni @: N
G
�'i
7i N W c
m:
�:
�i
Li
H
m fC0
N(Ycu
V): .O>: L:
:
W:
M:
..
�;.�.
O1p
:—:
N:•M
10; i6i f0i (0i iD
C
00
0
(u
CU
CL:'-': 0C: O: N:
0'i
Y:
=
i2E
l0:
0.
C f0•
'C to:co
0);
c
m
i
i
r: 00
CC
:
_�
•Q: lD
i
::°?,�: OS
H: Oi 10:
s+:
:
Ci
i r -I:
eq:'O:
•VIi
ob Ci C
°:
Q:
Q1i U: Y: V
0
°
o_
€
0:
L:
i N v°i. V O: m
N
>:
Q
i pi NS Li C m
Oi'L:
V
a€ E '>.Ui °':+•�i'ui•V,i*;,,
V1: a:
v;
o
€ Li^': >
0):'� 0):v
L
Lit:
L'
:.a: gni°:C:
0): 0):
ai'-i L'
fn:
Q.
IO:>:
L:•-:
+':
i,:
r0:
mi
iO;
; y;—: O•'O
O:
Ui : 0S 11i Vi
:
+"
ca: ro; Ni
O•
O• °
C:+':�iYi
v_)._iL; miQ
: Ci �t in' °: co
.0
C:
°:'Ai
i C_:` i a) : C
a
E
Ui
°:
E: m: of
(U:
y:
a'•
�'
C:
Ui
ui
7: °: Ci ai @i �i 0J: Oi'~:
E?
E:
N:
�:
Q:
O1;
v:
; a:'DS V: C
O:—:.-
cOi._:
�:
M: U: v): T: Oi•a: Ti
Li=:
�:
°Oi
Ui
Oi Ti =: V:.°: 00
�:
u.:
O:
0.
7:
O.i
N; Vi 7i }'i 7; O: ip: 10:
D: Qi mi U: 2: 2: UE a:
N: O:
a: a:
a:
L: 0): OC: 7i 0J: 7: C
a: w: US U: m: it: a: W
N
0)
N
H N M W O M ri R*
d'
M
d'
ri
0)
N ,OV., N M ILO 00
C
•
M
M
M
N M (7) N O d' W 0)
0)
r•I
0)
m
w
N w N w 0)
O
r\
r\
N
In M M V) M N N ri
ri
N
ri
N
ri
ri M ri N
0