HomeMy WebLinkAbout04825 email - Did you see the STR economic impact report for Washington published this month_ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
see attached..
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 5:14 PM Steven Pelayo <stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com> > wrote:
Heather, Sorry to not connect today. Feel free to reach out anytime. Greg also replied to my email and I wrote to him some topics he might want to explore before deciding any STR regulations.
I stated... "it sounds Jefferson is still at the early stages of STR regulations and should be looking at everything from housing to economic impact. You should be considering MANY
different types of regulations ranging from:
* zoning restrictions (residential vs commercial, distances between STRs)
* absolute caps as a percent of total housing stock (some allow up to 12%, others only 2%)
* number of days allowed (eg. majority of time must be long term, but allow for up to 6 months as short term)
* number of STR licenses allowed per person. (I would not limit this, but instead make permit fees progressive (e.g. $500 for one STR permit, $2000 for a second permit, and $3000 for
a third one. This will allow you to maximize fees for the County while finding the elasticity of demand.)
* Types
* type 1 (owner occupied - and is this a room only, or could a basement or ADU with a kitchenette be considered type 1 or type 2)
* type 2 (free standing home)
* type restrictions (e.g. some allow STRs in ADUs or apartments. Others believe ADUs and multi family are the best choice for affordable housing and thus restrict)
* fees/inspections
* code enforcement issues.
Don’t forget the lodging tax implications as well as the pending legislation to tax another 6% of STR revenue specifically for affordable housing. This could be very beneficial to
affordable housing.
And take a look at the profile of STR owners. In Port Angeles, there were no portfolios of STRs owned by corporations or secret LLCs. Most were owned by individuals looking to supplement
their income during these inflationary times.
In addition to businesses and tourism, don't forget about the microeconomy that surrounds STRs like designers, landscapers, cleaners, etc.
Look at your existing lodging capacity (hotels/BNBs/campgrounds/etc. What is the age, amount and quality of it? STRs are not necessarily "bad". Do not scapegoat them. Jefferson county
is not Miami beach! We need a "balance" of lodging solutions. Any family that has ever shared a hotel bathroom knows that an AirBNB is likely a more desired and possibly cheaper option.
Businesses, kids sports and more all use STRs.
I'd recommend not being too extreme with regulations in either direction.
There is much to consider. Let me know if you would like to have a chat.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 5:13 AM Steven Pelayo <stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com> > wrote:
Did you receive my first email response? Here is the zoom invite for today at 1 PM.
Steven Pelayo is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: Steven Pelayo on Port Angeles STR Regulation
Time: Apr 2, 2025 01:00 PMVancouver
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83852656127?pwd=JmodpXdJNukDTuzObzsLB9Tg5Yea3H.1
Meeting ID: 838 5265 6127
Passcode: 804721
On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:16 PM, Heather Dudley-Nollette <HDudley-Nollette@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:HDudley-Nollette@co.jefferson.wa.us> > wrote:
Sounds good, Steven. I’ll call you tomorrow at 1:00. And thanks for the forwarded info.
-Heather
Heather Dudley-Nollette
Commissioner, District 1
Jefferson County Courthouse
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Office: (360) 385.9100
Desk: (360) 385.9157
Mobile: (360) 774-1986
All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the
Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production
to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws.
________________________________
From: Steven Pelayo <stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com> >
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:37:23 AM
To: Heather Dudley-Nollette <HDudley-Nollette@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:HDudley-Nollette@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Subject: Fwd: Opportunity to learn from Port Angeles experience with Short Term Rentals
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Forwarding the email I sent to Greg. Let’s chat on Wednesday at 1pm.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steven Pelayo <stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com> >
Date: March 31, 2025 at 12:24:12 PM PDT
To: Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Subject: Re: Opportunity to learn from Port Angeles experience with Short Term Rentals
This was a nearly a two year process so the slide deck took on many different forms. I gave presentations to the Port Angeles Business Association, City Council, the Kiwanis, the
Sequim Association of Realtors, local radio KONP, the Peninsula Daily News, Economic Development Committee, and the Port Angeles Association of Realtors. Each presentation was slightly
different and morphed overtime as we finally drew to a conclusion. I also happen to be on the Waterfront District Board working on revitalization of our downtown, so I have many slides
on the City of Port Angeles economy and demographics as well.
The Peninsula Daily News journalist named Emma Maple wrote a two part series that was fairly balanced. I also recommend you start there (links and text below).
Perhaps another path forward for us would be for us to set up a Zoom call and then I could walk you through some of the slides. I have some time this afternoon 1-4pm or from 9 AM
to noon tomorrow (Tuesday).
PART 1
https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/port-angeles-short-term-code-may-come-up-short/
Port Angeles’ short-term code may come up short - Long-term impacts with affordable housing, other factors, remain to be seen
by Emma Maple
Friday, September 20, 2024 1:30am
"PORT ANGELES — Port Angeles’ recently updated short-term rental regulations have several goals, largely surrounding affordable housing accessibility.
The full impact of the regulations, which will be enforced beginning Nov. 1, may take years to realize. However, several sources have said initial impacts and projections indicate
they may not immediately meet the goals that the city council was hoping for and may negatively impact Port Angeles’ tourism industry.
Some of the city’s goals include increasing the affordable housing inventory, collecting data and providing regulation to an industry that had been largely unregulated, according
to council discussion during a work session in 2022.
To accomplish those ends, the city updated its short-term rental code this March. The regulations require all short-term rentals, or dwelling units rented for less than 30 continuous
days, to be licensed, undergo a fire life-safety test and comply with certain limits.
Those limits include only allowing 200 Type 2 short-term rentals within the city and only allowing one Type 2 license per owner, per marital unit and per parcel except under specific
situations. Type 2 short-term rentals are dwellings that are not the owner’s or lessee’s principal residence.
“These new regulations ensure basic safety precautions are met, protect the public and help manage the impact of short-term lodging operations on our neighborhoods,” city communications
coordinator Jessica Straits wrote in an email interview.
Affordable housing
“Housing accessibility is a critical issue and remains one of the city’s top priorities,” Straits said.
By imposing limits on the number of Type 2 units that can exist in the city or be owned by individuals, city council members indicated in the 2022 work session that the regulations
could increase the stock of affordable housing.
However, many units that used to be short-term rentals do not seem to meet the definition of what one might consider “affordable” when they are sold.
According to the Olympic Peninsula Lodging Alliance (OPLA) website, in November 2023 there were 45 homes for sale in Port Angeles that had been short-term rentals at one point. Their
average listing price was $453,000.
After the code changes, Steven Pelayo, president of OPLA, said that, based on discussions with local real estate agents, more than 17 short-term rental homes have sold or are pending
sale. The average sale price was about $495,000.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as housing that, in total, costs no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income.
Timothy Dalton, Clallam County housing and grant resource director, said the individual median income in Clallam County is about $64,000. That means a monthly affordable housing
payment for an individual should cost no more than $1,600. That would mean an affordable house for an individual, with a very low debt-to-credit ratio, would have to be priced about
$240,000, Dalton said.
The median income for a family of four in the county is about $94,000 a year, Dalton said. That works out an affordable monthly housing payment of about $2,350. Affordable housing
for a family of four with a very low debt-to-credit ratio should cost no more than $350,000, Dalton said.
The current average short-term rental selling price of $495,000 is between $145,000 and $255,000 above what the price tag of an “affordable” house should cost.
“This whole exercise is not creating affordable housing in any way at all,” Pelayo said.
“Short-term rentals were a low-hanging fruit,” Dalton said. “There are so many levels to the affordability problem on the Peninsula.”
Long-term rentals
In addition to increasing affordable housing stock, the city council hoped to “encourage more long-term housing opportunities of all kinds, including long-term rentals,” Straits
said.
Council member Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin said during the 2022 work session that limitations on Type 2 short-term rentals could have long-term benefits on housing prices, especially
for renting.
He cited a 2019 Harvard Business Review study that found that the growth in absentee landlords who are renting short-term contributes to about 20 percent of the average annual increase
in U.S. rents, and about 14 percent of the average annual increase in U.S. housing prices.
It remains to be seen what the long-term impacts are of regulating short-term rentals, which made up between 2 percent and 3 percent of Port Angeles’ housing stock prior to the code
changes.
However, many of Port Angeles’ short-term renters said they won’t transition to long-term renting due to Washington’s rental laws, which are generally considered to be tenant-friendly.
“Washington has made long-term renting kind of a problem,” Dalton said.
Instead, Pelayo said many people are keeping the units for family use or offering them for tenants staying longer than 30 days, such as traveling nurses, corporate individuals and
more.
One short-term rental owner, Sara Olson, said she’s afraid of long-term renting because she thinks Washington’s laws don’t equally respect the landlord and the tenant.
Skip Hutchinson said he won’t long-term rent his additional units, either. He used to rent long term, but he said his last tenant trashed the place and moved out owing thousands
of dollars. He had to get a loan to fix it back up.
Hutchinson said he and his wife don’t make “beaucoup bucks” short-term renting, but they can usually make about the same amount as long-term renting without having to worry that
someone is going to trash the place.
Housing for tourists
Prior to the short-term rental regulations, data indicated there were a little more than 230 short-term rentals in the city, Straits said. Pelayo said that number could have been
as high as 300.
As of last Friday, city information indicated that 181 Type 2 short-term rental applications were active or pending.
With between 49 and 119 short-term rental units ceasing operation, Pelayo estimates that, based on an average of three to four guests per short-term rental, the city has lost at
least one, and up to two, Red Lions hotels’ worth of lodging capacity.
Marsha Massey, executive director of the Olympic Peninsula Visitor Bureau, said the loss of inventory will certainly impact tourism.
“Any reduction of inventory, especially during peak season, makes it more difficult for people to find lodging,” she said.
Steve Coleman, president of Lincoln Park BMX, said he will never again try to host the USA BMX Gold Cup Finals because he doesn’t think the decreased tourist capacity could handle
it.
“As hard as it was for people to find rooms last time [in 2022], I don’t think there would be enough rooms for people to stay in to be able to host the event,” Coleman said.
He said he’s also worried about having enough tourist capacity if the park is selected to host next year’s state finals. At the very least, he said the decreased capacity will affect
the event’s scheduling.
“I’ll probably try to put it off as late as possible so it’s not during busy season,” he said.
He said he’s also going consider starting the races later in the day so people can drive from Seattle, do the race and go home on the same day.
“[The short-term rental regulations] are going to make all events re-evaluate how they’re going to schedule,” Coleman said.
Steve Raider-Ginsburg, executive director of the Field Arts & Events Hall (FAAH), said the regulations are going to complicate hosting overnight events as tourism grows and short-term
rental capacity remains static. During the Clallam County Economic Development Council’s Coffee with Colleen chat on Sept. 11, he said FAAH already has lost conferences because of a
lack of lodging capacity.
“Event planners will choose to go to places that have affordably priced and accessible lodging,” Raider-Ginsburg said in an interview.
Planned future development, such as the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe hotel, would increase tourism capacity, but it appears to be years away from completion.
Lodging tax impacts
With a decrease in short-term rentals, the city also could lose out on the lodging tax income those units generated.
“There’s no question that a drop in inventory is going to have a financial implication,” Massey said.
Lodging tax is an excise tax of 2 percent applied to hotels and motels, RV parks, camping sites and more for lodging for periods of less than 30 consecutive days.
In 2023, lodging tax revenue brought in about $1.327 million to the city. In 2022, it brought in about $1.146 million.
Massey said the January through June lodging tax report in 2024 has Port Angeles up 3.6 percent compared to last year. However, the rest of the county was, on average, up 19 percent
in its lodging tax income, she said.
“What that tells us is that Port Angeles is losing pace,” she said. “I would say Port Angeles is on the track to be flat to down a little bit by the end of the year, whereas everybody
else is going to be up.”
While that trend isn’t necessarily entirely due to decreased short-term rental capacity, Massey said the loss of inventory is one of the factors.
Once more time has passed, data will be accumulated regarding how well the code contributed toward its intended goals.
“We will have more data to share after code enforcement begins on Nov. 1, 2024, and as time goes on,” Straits said.
________
Reporter Emma Maple can be reached by email at emma.maple@peninsuladailynews.com <mailto:emma.maple@peninsuladailynews.com> ."
PART 2
https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/impacts-go-beyond-owners-of-short-term-rentals/
“Impacts go beyond ADVERTISEMENT owners of shortterm rentals
House cleaners, yard care workers expect to lose income
By Emma Maple
Saturday, September 21, 2024 1:30am ❙ NEWS
CLALLAM COUNTY
PORT ANGELES — “Frustrating,” “disheartening” and “di!cult.”
These are all words that individuals in the short-term rental economy repeatedly have used to describe the short-term rental code that Port Angeles adopted in March and will be enforced
in November.
The updated regulations require all short-term rentals — dwelling units rented out for less than 30 continuous days — to be licensed and meet a handful of requirements.
Jessica Straits, city communications coordinator, said the goal of the regulations was to update the city’s 2017 code and to e"ectively regulate short-term lodging operations.
“These new regulations ensure basic safety precautions are met, protect the public and help manage the impact of short-term lodging operations on our neighborhoods,” Straits wrote
in an email interview.
One per owner
The updated code only allows one Type 2 short-term rental license per owner, per marital unit and per parcel except under specific situations. It also allows only 200 Type 2 rentals,
or dwellings that are not the owner’s or lessee’s principal residence, to exist in the city.
The intention was to decrease corporate ownership of short-term rentals and increase a"ordable housing stock, according to a council work session from 2022.
However, the code resulted in several local short-term rental owners being forced to take their additional units o" the market, devastating for individuals who relied on that income
to make ends meet.
Before the code change, Donette Hope owned two tiny short-term rentals. She leveraged her house to buy the first unit, planning for her stepdaughter to rent it long-term. When COVID
hit, the job that her stepdaughter was moving to town for disappeared.
Hope and her husband then made the unit a short-term rental “to keep our heads above water,” she said.
When her husband lost his job during COVID, they bought a second unit, and her husband’s job turned into running the short-term rentals.
Now that the city code has banned them from operating the second unit, Hope said they are financially struggling.
“This is what we used to replace that income,” Hope said. “It’s going to be a huge hit, and we don’t know what to do at this point.”
Skip and Shireen Hutchinson used to run three short-term rentals under the same roof, in the house they’ve owned for the past 60 years.
Skip said he retired early from the Olympic National Park due to a disability, so he and his wife relied on short-term rental income. Now that only one unit can remain a short-term
rental, they’re struggling to figure out how to hang onto the house.
“It’s been a hard eight months wondering what is going to happen to our future,” Skip said. “We counted on this a lot for our retirement. We’re just trying to make it.”
Before the code changes, data indicated that about 230 Type 2 short-term rentals existed within city limits, Straits said. Steven Pelayo, president of the Olympic Peninsula Lodging
Alliance (OPLA), said the number could have been as high as 300.
As of last Friday, 181 Type 2 short-term rental applications were approved or pending.
That indicates between 49 and 119 short-term rental units didn’t make the transition, either because of the city’s rule of one per owner/marital unit/parcel or due to other reasons.
Inspection time
The city also will require that all short-term rentals undergo a fire lifesafety inspection.
Port Angeles’ inspection is based on “jurisdictional best practices from across the state,” Straits said.
“These focus on only the most essential fire and life safety measures, such as ensuring functional carbon monoxide smoke alarms as well as clear and accessible emergency (egress)
exists,” she said.
The fire life-safety checklist requires things like handrails, interconnected carbon monoxide and smoke alarms, visible fire extinguishers, functional egress windows with specific
net clear openings and more.
According to a Madrona Law Group presentation during a city council work session in 2022, most cities don’t have short-term rental inspection requirements.
Many short-term rental owners said they had a relatively smooth process of updating their unit and going through the inspection. However, others have raised concerns about the costs
of required fire and life-safety updates, especially given the fact that long-term rentals in the city are not held to the same requirements.
“Short-term lodging operations have an inherently higher turnover in occupancy, which can lead to a higher potential for safety risks,” Straits said. “This is standard practice by
many jurisdictions in Washington. Additionally, city sta" have not been directed by council to begin the regulation and licensing of long-term rentals.”
Kathryn MacGeraghty, who manages homes through Blue Sage Property Management, said she was “scrambling to comply with every blessed restriction” the city had. She bought new interconnected
smoke detectors, made sure each level had visible fire extinguishers, measured every window and more.
Short-term rental owner Sara Olson said at the time of the interview that she hadn’t begun the process of updating her one short-term rental because the requirement list “is so overwhelming.”
If she has to alter her egress windows, she said she could lose her shortterm rental because she can’t a"ord the $20,000 she estimates the update will cost.
“I don’t make much money at my day job,” she said. “This home is part of the way that I pay bills.”
Pelayo said some people didn’t even attempt to file a short-term rental application because they thought it would cost too much to meet the code.
Caitlin Sullivan said she spent more than $2,000 to update her one shortterm rental unit. She had to put in interconnected smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and replace two windows.
“I don’t think that the people that were involved in making the decisions about short-term rentals have ever run a short-term rental, or really potentially even been on the site
of an inspection, because the requirements are crazy,” she said.
Many people who run short-term rentals use that income to survive, Sullivan added, and the code requirements could put some people out of business.
“I would hate to see someone lose their house over city council code,” she said.
Trickle-down e!ects
While short-term rental owners are the immediate and obvious individuals who must bear the brunt of the new code’s impact, there’s another portion of the population that has been
impacted: those whose livelihood is built on the short-term rental economy.
That includes individuals like window cleaners, yard care workers and house cleaners.
Rebecca Messinger, who owns Strait Cleaning Services, said she thinks the code will cause her to lose at least five out of the 10 short-term rentals that she usually cleans in Port
Angeles.
The cleaning business is her primary source of income, Messinger said, and is crucial for helping her support her and her fiancée’s seven combined children. Her youngest, who is
9 months old, was supposed to start daycare in December. Now, Messinger said, she doesn’t know if she’ll be able to a"ord it.
“I don’t want to go back to ground zero,” she said. “I’m doing so well.”
Aubrey Thomas, owner of the cleaning business Olympic Happy Homes, used to clean for nine short-term rentals within Port Angeles. As a result of the regulations, she’s already lost
two of those properties, which she predicts will cost her about $20,000 a year.
Overall, based on previous short-term rental estimates, the cap of 200 Type 2 units, and short-term rental average occupancy rates, booking numbers and cleaning fees obtained from
AirDNA, local cleaners have potentially lost between $164,000 and $192,000 yearly in opportunity dollars, and that doesn’t include future growth.
AirDNA estimates the average occupancy rate for short-term rentals is about 200 nights a year, and that the average booking is made for four nights. That means each short-term rental
usually handles an average of 50 separate bookings per year and needs the unit cleaned just as many times.
According to AirDNA, the average cleaning fee for a small or rural city is about $128 for a three-bedroom listing.
Awkward timing
The city passed the code update in March. The application window opened July 1, and any applications not received by Aug. 1 were placed on a waitlist.
That is right in the middle of the busy season for tourism, which threw an additional headache at short-term rental owners, who had to find time to get into their booked units and
make required updates.
Sullivan said she made all her updates proactively, using drafts of the code that the city council released last year, because she knew there would be zero non-booked days in July.
“There would have been no way to do any upgrades,” Sullivan said. “We would have had to wait until November or December, and at that point we would have lost the ability to have
a permit.”
Hope said she happened to have one cancellation in an otherwise booked summer. She used that time to make necessary changes. If that hadn’t occurred, she said she would have had
to cancel guests, which would impact her rating and deprive her of income.
“They should have done the implementation during the slow season,” Pelayo said.
Despite some of the challenges with complying with the regulations, many short-term rental owners said they are in favor of regulation and licensing for short-term rentals. Parts
of its current iteration have been problematic, they said.
“I fully support having regulations, 110 percent,” Olson said.
________
Reporter Emma Maple can be reached by email at emma.maple@peninsuladailynews.com <mailto:emma.maple@peninsuladailynews.com>
On Mar 31, 2025, at 11:01 AM, Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us> > wrote:
Thanks for the email, Steven. Would you mind sharing your slide deck so I can quickly go through it?
Greg Brotherton
From: Steven Pelayo <stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 9:10 AM
To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Subject: Opportunity to learn from Port Angeles experience with Short Term Rentals
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
I am the President of the Olympic Peninsula Lodging Alliance, a 501c6 non profit that advocated for reasonable STR regulations for Port Angeles. I am likely the most knowledgeable
person on the Port Angeles process and the ultimate decision from the City Council. As with any decision, there were pros and cons, and unfortunately a lot of misinformation too. I
have an 80 page slide deck that analyzes STR impacts to everything from affordable housing to lodging/tourism/taxation. My group desired reasonable regulation from the very beginning.
Unfortunately, there were many mistakes made along the way and Port Angeles will suffer from some of those decisions starting in 2025. Let me know if you are interested in learning
more. - Steven Pelayo, CFA
--
___________________________________
Steven C. Pelayo, CFA
email: stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com>
mobile: 1 (360) 808-5154
--
___________________________________
Steven C. Pelayo, CFA
email: stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com>
mobile: 1 (360) 808-5154
--
___________________________________
Steven C. Pelayo, CFA
email: stevepelayo@gmail.com <mailto:stevepelayo@gmail.com>
mobile: 1 (360) 808-5154
띳ꝸ蕩郥鸳촬⊃査돇싥ᾴ딏ⷍ⊸헌鳝췝ꘋˑ䥘ࢎ킟闘ᗪ頥畴넓겭䗥雋蒤ꒄ쎖ᰲ䟖澆ꫣ￫牶䉂㊡祬⤳ℱ䭹伤朗씮䗆왅䟇앆彩䗆악朵渲๛듽㣒뺔甂辥ᾟ뗑⮪ꭌ쓅沦餶꜄鎘既░㬱ㄮ㸱┮⠩┶쎣ꂴ깆졨螰⋄�䧑ሔᴜ弨쑼眥햰⭈㦚㌡廕慣⍋涯癰覭헌켐�ⶦ誀쥳쪃闍片缎䈿㚿筱⽴쓲⡎瓲㜞꒥찡検짎ꔩ伢꾈ন쏾뷴뿆촩ꋸ懁�䜱ꔽ贴ꓽ슑줯唋茿�蹩肔廘ꋪ鉚헴ᾍ糟�掲伋副ḏ߁ẛ䃼㳢쥉뼿ⷬ콋缬㾝䞌틶㯫齎뇞ꏽ䂏
ෛ궠ꭋ悡좜㵘㨶嘮荻ࣟℾ饎ਾᄼ〜瀷葎ᒨ歹ꂜ懿㯯髠멊퍇뷨ᄗ肮ᨊ蛡⨪麑င薰䀤␠ऱ눢ꈖ៘엚ퟞ�奻讻�殺ᕷ쳟ᯜꠈ闻�緷釃Ꝼ㦜鳽㮙թ剦넫깍ꆃݝ䖺⌇覺膑ݩⲐ淶炶䌊獷琇㜏ளÜ壟莃迥戎屵ꎸݵ烽ꘀฟ篺쿵�翔꾩뾧窍덻靣婵༇쾑���ᱡ炰䆠刓㮃幟汓벿떮㖴疷㛥曍嚮�㞻ቫ㏺ᑸ㜎랱沵昗⼋�벾뜍炱㌍ֱ䌗灣耱퀗㓿붼䦵膘覭ᠵᜄ孻蜫뛞拰正ୡม宅誃놱▩ঘ㐮薺⽛♟雕ॎꀌﯸꯕ�䎁쾍횩ງ浐滒퓕苜푿ﯵ弚굒
媣븵뿜럠�Ƽ零通돍◨짠⻚猇팪�삸풺艺䳵什ض�窎릸箹뮸뎴䇛駻䣢།䈷학嶽軗∐⯙평ꯋꞣ坻猓ږ̽뀳끭뜵�튓�참β샃枮᩻ᡛ㒼ᦠ眸�鹢Ḗḩ㲣碦磔扰깾㈤넜�귖桄낞콧쫠ⱏ⇏檄ሕ俲ꍥ蟗ៃ뛞埃㙪ꀌꖂ鍧玕퀀♫묲椕ⷶ똶⻖뫈皊䅁걤䖀Ꮂ돔喁澇⺧洚鋩❲挛᭳箹檩⬘讟鵜�챎垅칺넴足膓融�贵、ᱶ궬栜悻ꃘ蝇뉠浌⳺ꅨﲥꕋ寱纅ᘒ賆튶�孊⭩ꕭ뒭뚕囒䫚楛洫궥閴튶�孊⭩ꕭ뒭뚕囒䫚拏⡯뗨Ỗ㥽鯨栠쓎㜛ߑ
槖猔磚槂줳䌺䘇뭈홀⧵됮擧胝欢ㆂ䝴溲煄竺�፯骠詔涉夆冧氌줫鴺�೫訽눖侮뜱保ූ섨きᒆ魇뉔Ѯ칠疐̳ኍ㨌斠ꨦ姭箶냺ן쌀颻몢ꨡꂻᆺ푠溕홌ᴉ甒蝂鵄⇐村샨㨐ຄ㪉䎡亢部Ꭸ曪軦䰮㝔ӟ훲ਥ䷕冀懍픟ℭ嵯ꡄͮ훪鑝溨Ϋ蝯䃴冀킝㇜�턎瀢ힶ熁꧓≻槸�픅偫ᮽﾪ㪆᯼탪픲㟩쫕課冂⣼蔸樎䩼䔾ᒉ䔹︆铔詒쉄껯甀ᕸ纀舉ǰ氣ᒊ谔ׂ祽빠ꊚⵂ렱濃ᩄ긂Т٩庀ꔱ⌤㋬址❋态ԯ许ḁΕኜ
ႊ藔꺠挀⛊堺씸퐟㔺芵䰩菄怀Pౘᗐ㨀蜐劐쉈Ƕ粭ௐ譇輁⚪ꂙ␞่矩짹멅⣀ꀑΝ恆¯ꉩ貥Ḅ⤹蘩ᒨ冃鈡똗Ųዮ地窉Ɗﴃ筚臊釚禠ꐲ黛빨䄘⦈プ桄ࢮ꫱謋纡嬨㑓끙๙길将쁈ᕌ䋐줤蒧◤薩ȼ᷄״ꈑ뤍䐯対Ѿ◽퀏⊓굌帷嘀ꒂ㞒틩銛ꂎ䵔زਁ鐡嚀ࡘ⤜Ḕ縅淿ᠤ뾣梶�ഒꁱ戊䞋檣☰��℃씧꼀턂㠥䗈퐔ꍈ䢙౪䷅鈩�榤㐭鏬笣絃罀⌓詫鰐뒂ገꑅ턌⁑袙䊹謒沘ဋծ뫢䀈톩鰘莕탸롪뚵숌쩶窯魲恤딶궛뗵ᑶⶨ猂ꂄⓍܭ萣쮠ꉬ嫓ं劲툉႓璷
䉖⩊幁䔮곾붍뫖率ꢤצ뷠硛럏Ꮁﰼ못衍༩⧴㞑醪蓥�ⷸ됉뿔ꯦ躧䀏ࡉ푙麈嬶鄩霿Ｂﺁ䌬ⰱ껸蒤৯硚ᄕ犋䫲䕈懔偖릐爁떫ᚦ萏ᦄ꿨鑼ꏈ툲촲뗘∑딡䒬䫙㺂ꋏ洦�遥驊�ꯒ좙Ȳ纑痰榎झ⡞䋗笹籐ᅁᲣ椉ꈔ≌噆耕㲡ꄀ焥氎랕즼淨ᛎ⚪榍惡噗羆ጲ炭栤恱鯭림瘑竒ᢍ抭㉒㞃굟娮ﲯ૾ⴃ튗㤔鴪鮕㞰ס鉢Ṗ旲椙♷妒晉≾샷懲쉣ᒯꂀܠ襘⽌Ĕ禥涅쾝۾㑛䡩撀窇邓庹완Ⴊ⽠挢禤Ǘ䠩⫐䊤䦾�㪂ଚꎭᄣ敚ⶤ쳲㋗鐾╽鹨猪��묪畩
竟퐶鄚畏훥헲ﾼ蹩䢕䍫쨦狷╄ꦷ혭ჱ洞橦粷ᖝܺ⋱圦嬦숒뺆얤⡕ꑊ㱍ꖺﴯ嫳巕ৡ甩驗㺖곝잤羢軓헚擏暤㫄蠜ᗐ泒䯖䔁沌㫜綃Ἣ餓葟퀤碮娽煤쀁䜨㯛扞깧敝嶣髉ꑵ厛칚ꅒ䅜⫘钇�깫㯠唖䤶䊯⩞�⢉嘢�ﴕ襇ꍆ铉퀘Ê▫䁰؟⢲谗莤ﰖ禴೩砠磤摧ິDž㒸운㠑Қ駚율僅퐰궆xҟ셰톹뺔䚈勤䁍줈롅䄓ɯ䞸炓䙰䍉⾟ꉍꋄ䠬䯐댂ﶈ蜻三ꃹ欟낒圥䐜쭑≙煨︁爸ඔ獰㸐㿈ᾤ䵉왼鲐醲₎衦縓㹖딁潠렚§Ḹ쾢㉆�Ω戙㣀䬡刀⇶
╥ꃠ퉾ᇉ⍨忈⠂勍醱㜐鬒ҋ獛缐館ʶ섌․ራᆐ㹨ᆔ魊媀勍阑䒊烒㟐挦퐛裘曟쥚⼤ᵜ靵욁ꆛ龜ስ딙欈ꉄ㊎孉酲괜暩传䚌汐ㄤ즯扃�뵫ꂓ겑ৃཁ囚ភ垭罣⌑ᘄ磭椚꿩˵캵㩆粁髱缨㌏춈顕츟軪壅岢圦⪗壄岤邩ԫ襪놃劥⮌쯉ꭗ기╘๖謑ぼ댳焸劎艜⬥㋄鰾ₓ锨ꤱ似쐢犄ꥅ츒�漄䳁⮌⪐뇲脸⡌ᘗ�圖刬䩁糼ઉ짢⮕ࢱ蹉≔䠔鈱耢Α颢幊ᒬ솊圭≝詐抱䢙쒬僔ฎ䬟㋅뢕꘧謒焱蹑謒⤰译쒉ꄪꉒʀᨢ넢⁚ꪑ≼丁쀉䒒ᇐ橠䂥⸤⠒ㄋ
痷ᗄᗧՋམ㑝襞ꄒ๒ᝎ唫抐侐Hȉ删襸㣼္葁诅櫕墩㓙匃⬕刔怉圼匮惻걢偈ᖊᄃ僔끙匛㇋务倬馋䢘劢Ԁㄲ䲁⦄ኔ⨰ 灢ꠗ蔰奘儤ƫ鲺ꑒ괨퐺`啨궩䋤䰊䝸泪䝢钡誋檅ئÝ旌㧂ɚᤒ鉖ᄯ噰蠂摊楂ࢱ賺箖䲹詚䥹়缌ⷅ䕡ⲉ匏喊ꕪࡄ�L潎헂椓䯀ꠂ얨큅䩐ꀉ鈪좗犤ꢁ萄肪胁爸ੀ譜藠ㄢጔꖋ隊Ԛ↑┫ꇁAꁂ粟蹉揬٦▽⹗쪕⁋馪蹘Հ镸髋唼ѫ粯媵쏑埗鄩䨔戔䒑⏠싹⾖ᲀ煮㞴⼰୲搕ꈌ盹縐砫鋎ऐ吜腳제唄ḣ阢삂傦ⶕ픂Ⳍᨅ蕇ᦼ
⁔댆铲ꀂᄙ쬓艕Π⏞៌첀읐址ꋀ㩠켦섁茦ᅊ䒠羳ਫ਼郈ꕀஒȥῨ뤢뢰堈䁄도ㄅ邶馑鳢⑈ࠆ营븝蜉䢕倫宰�꒘䆻뗮勃艓쐶⒥╲肠ࢂ졊諄⋤⹉讼䊑씔⁀㹕堊㪀ᢧ꼆瘊庒␂״ꮂ˹퀌ꓖ뺖⫉⒀㐑ꚤ拉ꋲ邿蘑녁ْᆘУ㤢鞈넂교끵㽦츆鈯삠䇫뢸䜠䐾鎬䇰萊茡臸ꙁ爔镈/守깄䝀═꼤͒鉧ጀȥ꿽ⷣᨮ◣�棜쎌勃즸鳩갨鬳�馝٘ᾇ鲗쟆Ѐ鶗쿄鋄っ剶ᘦ䧏把텢卽톸Ḽ첖㣅⦉鰉큨䧇䲊譈ⓢ担怑剞堲㡗ሠ刁㉾आꢒ털蠼ㄬᮚܙ丈蜂즟拄ﰸ
蠤س攠⥣隙⥢�撔㑞ἠ퀅焦抒肸瑊瑢�倇紅瑘栺뱠瘸ɂ씢͎珜缑즑餩乜ᱬ謟之誈鴆턑㎀䑶㑂ੁᔈ삙ⓦ넲瘨㬢ᨶ䫍堆ࢸ⌮ᨮŵ決㿰쾒义抂♄ꂹӉ牒䷹㍓밸♨硲⅐�聤ꨞ찓䙈쁈꒼ɨ吋혵⋂Ѐ펶텸볍䕄Ꮃ⸀鰞揬瘆爭Ӵ鼄摆䧨蜣䩒̵Ꮟꀅࣽଽ읩诓㢈ꛧꇏꑯꛯׯ�㯩毨컛�많뛝玝緿�ꯄ涇�㯿뫏鶵띷瞝鶷띷瞝캷淦�켭떼槚㭮滷꿾넆ﳙ⦌뚄猽宊茼宊攼虌茫装쑧䈲㗁䀄䀋菶畻朢句倷턗⠩늇밁봒ధ⃢珟ꅍ稴矨뾌ꟾ菭铯覦늤눼ꏮ
냩囎爊Ꮐ効茠⋗走⮔㊔墱뢥覐첎墘䂂שּׂꃗ쐩Ⱟ॓㩞䣾縡ᚏ腘㩫甛ᬙᦝ胕ꍖ꣩崄ᨲ쪕삲ڍ趍誣೩唚芏혏侪健섵⨴䚣ஈ꙰轎拋凗鐮ꡞꌤⲤ쩇讆潸灘⭖಄瑬侖Ꙇ打띾〪흤뎲투彶ꂏ揘㋻︋ꍒ⤱㗀㾌൰䫽鴍ꕆ泑⧼ؔ훷霷帞讔㳞藎䥨ꠉ耦ᇏጬ䣜麟탆ꆷ㙘ᖸᡬᣚࡧ凜夒媞挮냦샓胆ᘫ줕≥ˮ豻侚痉ᥞ祠鷡㣠웝睍磆㲒Ѵኚ蛉쀯룠莫ᾙ་ﷁ�苽션ꁙߩⲚ覲ﾫ︖燈矺燆픍坝䁑瓿픍ʂ跺ᩩ锪斲�铙奩흡濦羏ಬ鏋⨦ົ戼⮾퍜虊�쥻㯦賈瀍
㐻봣擿蔟ꩉ齏憔㙯⑫쮒㟗뤜ᩒ鵋籾뾲�噸新뵶洽अ핇욛㊈䛞烻蕭易��㿊簮䩌龲妣㬷�퇐勫흷匍휥礿嘟猴榽橬䉬�㎽㭷ꛕ뗷혜嬹㡊䷎鞯잋墫ꋀ酾ᮥꬲ릏꩟辿狩죿蟼舙ߴ㖚薧쿮㥤�髃វ殌됖찑듐䲊薪旞쾿㛸⾃컃繛嘺뽔蛄݆눡䍄ఝ刴�崀ト跅讁퀙磩�칩枰洴暸誕箖嬩祸礪섮ⅳ蟎囃䒌縼ܩ斏썵䊻颃磘ᬶꎄ䬔秡뉪䱂䖘▅㏀녧斈�灂ᬽ㼳뽿삐꺐䄁ǁ臁᮸烁�뀴Ꝭꔻ巯퉥힖퐝縞忷얬⇓ᮀᤣ萇㡫넵ꍣ韉萟ꥊ酏
뒖傏⢫삔彞헲锟μ썶뮃䇡>켈䫒ꕎ鈲Ӱ込趶웓⛶鑉钔譼墄韹햸⦸�䪆싽嚔䯱�냞핪◡͛鎢뉼댶▯ⱎ춬㙘ꦩ컷ꅛ껴頾榞ꋻ剪冲䛻뤟콗켐㷱丏륧�洵溇빇ᠯ멟컽첎瑖쩥侕袿漭⼅ힻﴰ♂쩮뛙깺톞묅겧ꟺ驿堟罹鯡鵙籧뇴齛⑧䱿⻁벬㉘駩醚坒桹啪ꬒ뇪裭蛘漿뿚ౕ㫌㛣懊漒꯸鐡䬽ໞ短늘ꖸ垇夿펹�陼圗ﰎ䉝ﭓ餛䶢Ჷ�샹죪ꮅ鲷值ꮈ爟缲⓶髹䯠䚸ş弲≟᧫䰋হ쟄婦묧䭿燃鬢㝸玏狥Ѐ⭬闉Ԉ
ㅪ⻆闋甒卩Ϟ惗젼༏觀ូ㑈愃㿳鞞凿簆⥊�柎䨣苂뗪틯ῳ嵇猺澸ꫲ䍥⡾�婤勭࿗쐟뮚朎㺫쵇簳鸨驾㚙썰㸻坝뮲渺ᱝᐤ᧚囼Ӏ쇗ꟕ貶꾌潝蔋픎维쁣責㧽㝯ꡩ駘䩾흭巣릌㋳뎆⇟羗旌ﭷ楃᤹�戻뼁念沾胆帵亣氵灚뺏硅鍮퇭䟽瘧츲検曆决臖혉데ⳟ犿鉳屉藉�쬆䟭긞㹾ꂩ庛䆿橇撻ᥰ紘�嗖簞짂呿蓁◄뤅ꇂᯓ㏰�ᦴ죐��岈嵗퉵㟟郳퍓嬄쌚헔氘姃蔤鮍駀ఖ暈測ᓑ竻ᴸ嫜롤랆⟩Ẫ鎗Ὗ㵚ﬥ踹ﺇ㍯삵쥙
ᐬ췔ￏ⩿緃뜇⼚ྟ욙槲祸鍕籲磨㥹ꨞ䔥�뺳⩋鸥⯣ஒ빕⦑弼㢑偗唬讫㰴헀欏瘏⯓罰ျ켼질鋓큒釢㣧ꛢⳓ갟埽�ﵙ⌢믙郬약淐㿜촙ꭟ쁽⺗鿌塦믟�䟩ӯ몬빚髭攫�鹿篺䬣鑧ꏜﾝ짽厥깉ӭྋ祤뼸벜✲㨵塎휯૱ꎇ⿋澚潽⋙擉픧ẳ訬ﲍ랃齶⸅�뙸嘣ᜤ뮜큡奰慉왊ऎ뵍㲺끘좠㫠諄舋笃软捞덱뷃㝒몓蹴띖츾鋦償减꺬띛ᥓ琫룸싼齣뒮验갫ⓛꂙ䯿�蹡ཡ뜏탯אּ�৶江㞜鏲㱻ꉧ䎑ꕹ⭓㟦붜ꨚ簊渦
셬햾㌶囎嵚鶙쀷솟諗㮍閒煑덵즪뭳ꤽ繽ⶹ␃霟㏚⮨杔錒绫䯓槿믘�ퟄ稥ᗉ⹇ﲙ丹숬�졬輝ꇴ鷮�夸몶�⮊ﺱ唹轋㠟㗘ﵼᆇ㨝瑎㛩狨Ӱ蓶봅焇屟鶈㍝ﰪ嶹䥹积礷캎쾻퍯쐹ꂸ䧓܇穮ᨓꯋ离ꫯ₉쮴槅폌姁쎽堣�ബꐏ��锿뼶쎬⮹ഫ㫊踎ꍚ灟ﳿᮑ猞ᙦ星鱩熊펍끠쟹�蟾띷㫺၏怛⇚�캈픲䑽鰁뜴塌룦꣮㳛솑杲འ걃暂뇽Ⲳ擺헾⭷䳢䜿㯪귞웂瑗㰧杊⦺ࠫꠏᶱﵥ诵譮䙜쌹嚈ℑ⫝宦䂭ഌ投窱䇓㛛ꥎ㡟燽쒏뷲
㽳諐諰썑ퟙῇ쯳ശᐭ蝓畅椎舷ᗥ瞸䵂꼪鏙앧㗟鶗ꥳⵘ㍿鮎㗫㹒钁��簟練㴲늷탪�跴䉳橍讯曧߇㡾篟䡅莗吿퐅替甎誓뀿쵦㑪噘䤹ᙴ싹籱壘ꍷ蚙酥걙仭뷎㿩皼냮㜧嚇�ꘙ寶꿟세闬蛑Ẑ�幯᭞뎸거켗ㇺꙝ壍ᆠ欥풎굌ᯩቩ彭뭻쩙滱�㵝�ጯ㾋�輑ꑝﾱ殌㿬ꤴ亗늧䂏뷟켖䀗姗锚꦳骆澪㖢▧㱸僕臃筮膁샮䦟揔贲퓩㱯뺇칠ꦮ暹녴㲨ﴱ⏮�ﮜਫꝥ兾ᩍꙶ璢䴌ꜿ⊲핽䜑㼛㰜惡ᑻ緝如Ⲭ㆜䚊嵽틫史兩뿱樥쐞蒳
문걈ffl鴰१❖鏜欀쿏쀗컷称ⰼ鞚⏔⠪ꨢ둛瑿㝰偖䃷㨭⺺븺䢤跜ᚧ⤔Ḱ黱᪰ᖍ휟領綂쾂먇扝핥葭ধה㞭㾤ⷼ ꌥ듛⛿붟迕舕輻烡䰏鷖敿尟ףּ䍺荋娛�苐ﴅꏹ쭾諢븏�‵턺ﻦ�훏﨟눫蚪꽭듛闽쿸ｳ陜�杁ًꓫ뉓鳋ᯊ랆ໟ⼵ﰽ缆�옸骦빵狖ᓑ㖏坮⽖锻�儺⇾㰯鍣玻딀샬첈銊土척⡈렻惖ꕗ퓟쩂苘�鞓᷹ꯖ픕㛴긨㚰痸쵫῭믬鱭鞘囎쥮ꑰ㎍잋쾜㳴뮳쾔凘魓磸鎦ཀྵᎇ圓Ы뀋嚫ᯃ蟼ネ럙룱뾳뫾㆑ﶁ鿧閷䟽ᢇ
Ｎ열噻먭㓴喩✃�㮉㘙㻶蠭떒蜇༊�롹ޤ之쫌닱瘪ꎪ�☎ߑ╇ꘋ㌞睶긑䪌떌ဌ㫟ꊗ�鲺썻듶뷧ꆚ廗똋ﰱ賆체씲𢡄࿘伇鹯荼ﮬᾟ驆訯㠽ఫﾼ뢛쾝ｖᓎ乜鷩빕꒼샻눏덣坩뻂�㻕꼾�꺱ᓯ䋱滇㦭겴셰뻞贒쳠ⶢᛣ漨렞妍�㕕羥뼥༃眖翟镯ꝲ䏤悰⟹ﶪ얛➏�㶜�雜�萭Ⱛ҉贀倐Ạ膀ᇭ