ÐÏà¡±á>þÿ =>þÿÿÿ<ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÜ¥hcà enX£v`U tRtRRuRuRuRuRufufufufufuruˆu@fuäuJÈuÌuâuâuâuâuâuâuâuäuäuäuäuäuäu.vX†väuRuâu-0 âuâuâuâuäuâuRuRuâuÈuâuâuâuâuRuâuRuâuâuÙ€'¦¾fufuRuRuRuRuâuâuâuâu Sustainable Maintenance in Transition Economies M.Kataviæ, A. Ceriæ, I. Završki Department of Construction Managment, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Zagreb, Croatia Abstract The problem of maintenance has been considered in European and world scientific circles for a long time. This is because structural changes in investment go in hand to hand with economic development and business advances. The level of investment in the construction of new structural projects is constantly decreasing and the level of assets invested in the maintenance of existing buildings rising. Experience shows that usage, maintenance and reconstruction costs far outweigh the cost of initial construction. Much research has been done in this field, but maintenance problems differ from country to country. Differences are particularly noticeable in the average age of the building, its original quality, technological approach and materials used in its construction, climatic characteristics, type of ownership, economy of the country in question etc. Seven years ago, Croatia changed its economic and political system from socialism and a state-run economy to a market economy, thus bringing the problem of sustainable maintenance into the focus of scientific and professional research. The paper reviews the full scope of issues related to the maintenance of buildings in the Republic of Croatia in general, and in its capital, Zagreb, in particular. The districts of Centar, Novi Zagreb, and Trešnjevka have been taken as samples, being historically and architecturally very different. Each district, however, proved to be a very homogeneous sample regarding the main characteristics of buildings, and can therefore represent a model for setting priorities for sustainable maintenance. Analysis of the economic and technical indicators within the life cycle analysis may indicate the unjustifiability of further maintenance or full reconstruction of a building. However, the historical, cultural and architectural values of the architectural heritage of any city must be preserved, and Zagreb all efforts in this respect are being exerted. A new model for maintenance sustainbility is being developed at the Faculty of Civil Engineering which is especially adjusted to the specifics of transition countries, one of which is Croatia. Keywords: sustainable maintenance, buildings, transition economies, heritage 1 Introduction The problem of maintenance has had high priority in European and world scientific circles, as the economic development and progress of a country changes the structure of investments. The proportion of investment in the construction of new buildings continuously decreases as investment in the maintenance of existing structures increases (1(. This is especially the case in old city centres. Analysis of economic and technical indicators within the life cycle cost analysis may indicate to the unjustifiability of further maintenance or full reconstruction of a building (2, 3(. However, the historical, cultural and architectural values of the architectural heritage of any city must be preserved, and in Zagreb all efforts in this respect are being exerted. The problem is how to preserve the original appearance of the building and, at the same time, ensure the safety and quality of usage. Sustainable maintenance implies that buildings are to be renewed in a way to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfill their needs and preserve their heritage. The sustainable maintenance problem is very complex, and becomes a serious challenge to researchers in transition countries. These processes have fully emerged in Croatia which has embarked on the road to market economy and private ownership. 2 The Problem of Maintenance of Buildings in Croatian Cities To make possible an understanding of the problem confronting municipal authorities and the population in Croatian cities in their efforts to ensure sustainable maintenance we first need to explain the specifics of the condition inherited from the past system. The major part of the housing space in Croatia was privately owned until 1945. After World War II, the communists come to power in former Yugoslavia and nationalised all private property. People owning several flats or houses were left with a single large (5- or 6-room) flat or two smaller (1- to 2-room) flats, with the remaining space being given to new right-to-use tenants. Other real estate, like land, factories, retail outlets etc. became the property of the Yugoslav state which took over their maintenance and management. The maintenance of buildings in the past has been nonsystematic and without planning, with a significant difference in treatment of housing buildings and public buildings (theaters, schools, hospitals, courts, administration buildings etc.). Public buildings were under the direct jurisdiction of respective ministries (culture, education, health, administration etc.). There was always a shortage of funds for their regular maintenance, and repairs were undertaken only when it became critical. Partial or integral reconstruction of a building would then be undertaken. According the data from 1995, 5% of the total funds earmarked the maintenance of public buildings were spent on regular maintenance, and 14% on repairs. Investments in reconstruction represented 81% of the maintenance funds which amounted to US$53.5 million (4(. The housing space was shared between the real owners of flats and the right-to-use tenants, with identical rights as the real owners although the flat was either state- or company-owned. The right-to-use institution was specific for the socialist system in Yugoslavia and has a strong impact on the maintenance of housing buildings. The users on housing blocks were not bound to maintain the common parts of a building (roof, staircases, facades etc.) since it was so-called social ownership. The state, via its funds, contributed to the maintenance of housing buildings in the form of regular maintenance (16%), reconstruction (39%) and repairs which included emergency interventions (44%). The amount thus spent in 1995 was US$44 mil. (4(. After 1991 and the break of Yugoslavia, new socio-economic relationships were established in Croatia. The law on the purchase of flats has enabled the former right-to-use tenants to acquire ownership of real estate under very favourable conditions. The maintenance of all buildings in the Republic of Croatia with two or more co-owners is regulated by the Law on Ownership Relations which imposes on the new owners the financing of the maintenance of buildings. For instance, the costs of renewal of the façade on a 3-storey high building in Zagreb, built in the 1930-s average approximately US$150 000. The Law was enacted in 1996 and started being applied some months ago. However, the middle class population has been hit by the war and war damage, as well as the economic transition, and can hardly provide for the renewal of dilapidated buildings in which they now own flats. Such financial burdain will force numerous owners to sell their flats and move into smaller ones. Owners of flats in centres of cities, where the buildings are predominantly old and require more maintenance, will probably try to move to newer parts of the city. In all, after fifty years, housing has again become an economic category. 3 Review of the Housing Space in Croatia The age of the housing space in Croatia is relatively high, with over 36% of the total space being built before 1960. Of this, 23% were built before 1945, and the rest during the 15 post-war years. The quality of these latter ones was significantly inferior, creating additional maintenance problems. Table 1. Age structure of housing space in Croatia CONSTRUCTION YEARNUMBER OF FLATS(%(do 1918223,00414.21919-1945147,7699.51946-1960199,69712.71961-1970329,93720.91971-1980379,87624.31981-1985156,6309.9after 1985132,8128.5Total1,575,644100Source: The 1996 Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia As the table shows, over 63% of the total housing space in Croatia has been built during the last 35 years (5(. It was normal in the socialist system for the state to build new housing blocks in new city districts, while systematically neglecting the existing housing space composed of old, pre-war patrician buildings for which maintenance there was no funds. They were occupied by either the owners of flats or the right-to-use tenants and such flats were maintained depending on individual needs, ambitions or financial strength, but without any obligation from the tenants. Although neglected and in poor condition, these buildings have to be preserved for their historical, cultural and architectural value, while ensuring the basic requirements for safe and quality usage. Zagreb became a free royal city in XIII century and has as rich history. Its old core has numerous baroque buildings from XVI and XVII century, making the situation in Zagreb more complex. This is the reason that motivated the authors to look for conditions for the application of sustainable maintenance on the Zagreb example. 3.1 The Zagreb Case We shall start the analysis of the building maintenance problem in Croatia using the example of Zagreb, its capital. In total in 1994. there were 294,184 flats in Zagreb.Their age is relatively high with over 71,201 ( 24.2 % ) of the total being built before 1945 ( 22,534 flats (8.8 % ) being built before 1918 ). In last 25 years in Zagreb only 24.7 % of total housing space was built, mostly in new Districts like Novi Zagreb. The table below shows the different structure of expenses for maintenance of buildings according to age. Table 2: The structure of maintenance costs of building according to their age Housing buildingsLarge and high housing buildingsHousing buildings with up to 4 storeys with over 20 flatsSmall buildings (cultural heritage)Age, years20-305-1570-150Quality of housingpoor good to very goodaverageIntensity of maintenancelowmediumrelatively highMaintenance expensesrelatively lowmediumhighMaintenanceEmergency repairs, %30305Services & inspections1041Small repairs, %254015Large repairs, %252075Removal of damage, %1064 For our research the sample consisted buildings in three districts – Centar, Novi Zagreb, and Trešnjevka – which are historically and architecturally very different. All three districts represent a very homogeneous sample, and cover three important groups of housing buildings in Croatia, and can serve as a model for setting priorities in sustainable maintenance. Table 3. General analysis of maintenance of housing buildings DISTRICTCENTARNOVI ZAGREBTREŠNJEVKAPopulation51,810127,645 125,910Number of buildings2,0261,6911,310Number of flats12,00031,00035,000Living area, m2972,4802,015,0002,275,000Annual maintenance costs, US$4,563,0002,526,7002,099,200Age70 - 1505 - 4020 - 30Average costs, US$/m24.71.30.9Average costs US$/head88.119.816.7Source: Archives of the Municipal Housing Authorities for 1994 The whole of the Centar District is a protected city centre, with the majority of buildings from the second half of XIX century or early XX century. The buildings normally have four storeys, with retail outlets or office space in the groundfloor. Structurally, the buildings consist of walls in masonry, and floors of timber beams. The roofs are pitched with timber structure and tiles. Due to the unresolved maintenance system in the former system their state is relatively poor. The Trešnjevka District is divided into two parts. The older part, with buildings 25 to 30 years old, consists of buildings with 10 to 20 flats each. Structurally, the buildings have a reinforced concrete (RC) framework with flat roofs unfit for walking. Most of the maintenance costs is spent on the roofs. The newer part emerged some ten years ago, with four-storey buildings with RC walls and floor slabs and pitched roofs. There was no significant investment on maintenance in this newer western part of the district. Novi Zagreb is entirely made of large housing blocks and skyscrapers erected during the period of expansion of housing construction from 1960 to 1980. Buildings have an RC framework and flat roofs. Table 4. Review of expenses for maintenance in three Zagreb districts TYPE OF WORKCENTAR (%(TREŠNJEVKA (%(NOVI ZAGREB (%(Emergency repairs6.6 39.032.0Services and inspections0.8 4.08.3Small repairs13.7 26.422.5Large repairs78.030.526.4Damage repairs0.30.110.6War damage0.600.2TOTAL (%( US $100 4,563,000100 2,526,700100 2,099,200Source: Archives of the Municipal Housing Authorities for 1994 It is clear from the structure of expenses that the Novi Zagreb and Trešnjevka districts have high expenditures for emergency interventions, while the expenses for large repairs and reconstructions make a minor part of the total expenses for maintenance. Such a structure of expenses is very unfavourable and in the long term drastically increases maintenance costs. The structure of expenses in the Centar District shows that most of the expenses go for large repairs, which in 1994 amounted US$3.5 mil. Such a structure reflects an increased care for the old city centre, but is still insufficient. For instance, it was planned to spend US$1.8 mil. on the renewal of facades, but due to lack of resources only US$540,000 was spent. Typical large repairs include facades, replacement of old water supply and sewerage installations, roof repairs, internal renewal of staircases, introduction of central heating, repair of structural elements etc. According to data from 1994, US$2.3 mil. was spent on the maintenance of housing buildings in the Trešnjevka District. The highest percentage of this was spent on emergency interventions for the repair of water supply and sewerage, central heating, elevators, roof repair, and structural repair, particularly bearing walls. Data given in Table 3 on the maintenance of housing space in the Novi Zagreb District show that most of the funds were spent on emergency interventions and large repairs. This points to the fact that insufficient attention is paid to regular maintenance, which results in frequent occurrence of large damage. In general, of the planned funds most expenses went for emergency interventions on water supply, sewerage and central heating installations, then for the repair of roofs and elevators. The given data confirms the fact that the cause of the poor condition the buildings in Novi Zagreb are in is not only the lack of regular maintenance but also due to the inferior design, constrution and maintenance of installations, poorly designed and constructed flat roofs, as well as poor quality and age of elevators. The main requirement of rational maintenance implies comprehensive reconstruction after which only regular maintenance would be required. Investments in such reconstructions, particularly in parts of installations and flat roofs, would pay back through savings in regular and emergency maintenance. 4 Model for Setting Priorities for Sustainable Maintenance To set priorities in the maintenance of buildings, with the principle of sustainable maintenance in mind, one should define criteria for the valuation of individual works needed and decision making. Each criterion weighs each element of maintenance, and a total figure defines priorities. These criteria vary from country to country and are subject to continuous scientific research and upgrading. Historical, aesthetic, cultural, material, and functional values of a building, its age and other elements are all criteria which should be included in any decision-making model for priorities in maintenance. All models are based on a consistent and objective valuation of set criteria and on the formation of an index defining priorities in maintenance. The more criteria taken into consideration, the more substance the decision made has. Research to date has resulted in the formulation of several models for setting priorities in maintenance of buildings. One of the most widely known models is the attributive approach to setting priorities in maintenance. This model was developed in 1993 at the University of West England, UK. The authors were Prof. Alan Spedding, prof. Roy Holmes and Dr. Geoffrey Shen. Their starting point was a comprehensive study of the existing state in defining maintenance priorities by local British authorities and an analysis of the priorities setting models published to date. From the practical aspect, the model is simple, and from the manager’s standpoint flexible enough. The very process of making decisions is transparent enough to enable the participation of the users of buildings in defining priorities. When defining priorities in planned maintenance, the decision makers should analyse the condition of the building from various aspects, such as technical, political, financial, social, economic, and legal. After taking into consideration the above aspects, the criteria are defined and weighing factors applied. Besides standard criteria, special criteria also occur, such as legal aspects, maintenance policy, diverse informal pressures and others. Sometimes these special criteria have more influence than the standard ones and are decisive in decision making. Always the first step in planned maintenance of buildings is defining structural and nonstructural elements which require replacement or repair works (6(. The task on the model for defining priorities is to sequence consistently the defined maintenance works according to their overall significance. All models are based on an as consistent and objective weighing valuation of planned works as possible, and on the formation of a cumulative index which defines maintenance priorities. Let us define n criteria – C1, C2, …, Ci, …, Cn – and let their relative significance or relative weight be defined with W1, W2, …, Wi, …, Wn. If we label with j the work on the replacement or repair of a considered element, then for each criterion we can valuate this work, or the significance of this work relative to the set criterion. We shall label these values with Sj1, Sj2, …, Sji, …, Sjn. The cumulative index, called the index of priority for work j, is derived applying the following simple expression: Ipj = Sj1(W1 + Sj2(W2 + … + Sji(Wi + … + Sjn(Wn This way, each work on the maintenance of a building is valued by a single parameter, and prioritisation is carried out by simply arranging the indexes in a descending order. A new model for sustainability of maintenance is being developed at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Zagreb within a scientific project which is based on the above described attributive approach and is adjusted to the specifics of transition countries one of which is Croatia. When defining criteria, the specifics of Croatia as a transition country, but also a country with rich cultural and architectural heritage, were taken into consideration. Besides this, the model will attempt to consistently weigh the proposed criteria. 5 Conclusion This paper presents three types of urban districts in Zagreb, with buildings of diverse historical, cultural and architectural value. While some buildings are in poor condition and economic parameters indicate that these could be demolished without additional consideration, other which form the old urban centre and represent the wealth of all the citizens and even country should by all means be preserved. The problem is how to preserve the original appearance of a building, and also ensure the safety and quality of usage. Sustainable maintenance implies that the buildings are to be maintained so as to provide the people and communities with social, economic and cultural well-being without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and to preserve their heritage. No scientific research has been undertaken in Croatia to date which covers the management and maintenance of buildings. International experience in this field cannot be directly applied since each country has its own specifics in problems to be overcome by maintenance, such as the age of buildings, their initial quality, applied technology and materials and economic transition, like in Croatia, which reflects on the financial potential of the population and municipal authorities. The problem of sustainable maintenance is itself very complex, and becomes a real challenge to scientists in transition countries that have changed the political system. This is why it is not possible to apply directly the available knowledge on maintenance management to the Croatian case, but the existing knowledge and possibilities should be adjusted to our requirements and specific conditions. 6 References 1. Bon, R. (1995) Global Construction, Survey, Reading. 2. Gustafsson, S., Karlsson, B., Bertil, S. (1987) Optimization of Retrofit Strategy for a Building in Order to Minimize its Life Cycle Cost, CIB, Copenhagen. 3. Ashworth, A., A-Yeung, P.L.Y. (1987) The Usefulness of Maintenance Cost Records in Life Cycle Cost Predictions, Spon. 4. Kataviæ, M., Završki, I., Ceriæ, A. (1997) Maintenance Problems in the Republic of Croatia, Information Support for Building Economics, Salford. 5. Kataviæ, M. (1994) Analysis of Conditions in Construction and Building Materials Industry in the Republic of Croatia (in Croatian), Ministry of Counstruction RH, Zagreb. 6. Kataviæ, M., Završki, I., Ceriæ, A. (1997) Information Systems in Building Maintenance, Information Systems ’97, Varaždin. PAGE 1 ¡™¤ƒ.¥ÈA¦Þ§Þ¨Þ©Þª« 5HU«´em}Ð Ñ Ò Ó ¹º¾¿EžŸ ƒ„…†I J K t u ¢!ø!ù!ú!û!ü!¶"c#d#e#f#L'`'Ï)`*a*l**²*³*ç*è*++%+)+>+G+^+f+w++’+œ+±+.-–-—-¢-»-Ï-â-ò-....5.S.r.v..£.¤.¥.þüúþ÷õþ÷õðõëõðõëõþ÷õæõáõðõëõþ÷õõðõëõõðõëõ÷õõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõÞõõõõÞõahJ]aJ[aJ]aJ[aaUa]c$UX¥.².É.Ù.3Ê34&4'4(4)454647484E4F4G4H4J4\4l4…4“4¡4²4À4Ð4ß4í4ø455 55B5Ù>Ú>?OHPHQHRH¬IIºI»I¾I¿IÅIÆIÌIÍIJJJJ#J$J*J+J>J?JKKKK K"K(K*KhKiK¢K¤K¨KªK«K¬KK±K³K´KµK¶K¾KÀKýýýøõòõòõýýýýýýòõýïýêýåýâýßýßýßýßýßýßýßýßýâýßýßýßýßýâýßýßÚýßýßÚýßýßJ´aahVaJ]aJ[aUaJ[J]J[caVÀKÁKÂKÃKËKÍKÎKÏKÐKL™NšN¨N;U+A+D+F+G+^+a+c+e+f+w+z+}+€+ÙÖÎÎÎ§ÖÎÎÎ€ÖÎÎÎ&¸k» ¾4ø ¹z¬ ÿÿ&¸k» ¾4ø ¹z¬ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÔ&¸k» ¾4ø ¹z¬ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ €++’+•+˜+›+œ+±+´+¶+¸+¹+º+.-/-0-1-o-x--‹-–-—-¢-©-ÙÖÎÎÎÙÖÎÎÎ§¥¥££££Ÿ›››‰Ÿ›» ¾kÖA¬ &¸k» ¾4ø ¹z¬ ÿÿÔ&¸k» ¾4ø ¹z¬ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ©-²-º-»-Ï-Õ-Û-á-â-ò-ù-.... .*.4.5.S.].g.q.r.v..†.Ž..¥.©..±.².É.Î.Ó.Ø.Ù.//üüêæüüüêæüüüêæüüüêæüüüêæüüüêæüüüêæüüüêäà» ¾kÖA¬ (/ú0¥2Ê3Ë344&4*45494E4I4J4\4a4f4k4l4…4Š4Ž4’4“4¡4§4¬4±4²4À4Å4Ê4Ï4Ð4ß4ã4ç4ì4í4ø4üüüüú÷óóóóóóà÷óóóà÷óóóà÷óóóà÷óóóà÷ÚÚÚà÷x¸k» ¾¡ ð?Ž 'ø4ü4þ455555#5(52575A5B55‚5ñ6a869{:°;i<=Ø>Ù>Ú>??¥@^BÕB†E¹GžI K¡KÑKÒKL–NüüüéææüüüüüüéäàààààààààäääääààààààäÝäàÙ¸k» ¾¡ ð?Ž '–N—N˜N™NšN¨N©NBPÆQ«SUT;U@òTitleUaB@ Body Texta @ HeaderàÀ! @" FooteràÀ!)@¢1Page Number"@B" Footnote Textc &@¢Q Footnote ReferencehnUnXÿÿÿÿ¥.ÀKX-./J „"~*(+€+©-/ø4–NnX0123456789nU !”ÿ•€ÿ@JTimes New RomanSymbol"ArialîTimes New Roman CE"€hŒ%µÅ5&Ìò%ÆYeF$ƒ–1Unknownx !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;þÿÿÿýÿÿÿ@þÿÿÿHþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀFÙ€'¦¾?WordDocumentÿÿÿÿ £vCompObjÅÅÐÐÐ/à= À!ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿjÿÿÿÿSummaryInformationÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°þÿÿÿþÿÿÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.6ô9²qþÿ à…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0€˜ ¬¸ÈÔàð ü 0<H T`hpxâ1UnknownNormalx1EMicrosoft Word for Windows 95@@p{«‹½@oDocumentSummaryInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Àÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8ô9²qtâ E–$1Ÿ½@^~h'¦¾YeFþÿ ÕÍÕœ.“—+,ù®0@HT\dltâ E–$1