IDC Agenda 07-19-1984
.
AG
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIA
Thursday, July 1
Monticell.
NDA
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
, 1984 ~ 7:00 A.M.
City Hall
Members: Co-Chairman Jay Morrel:, Co-Chairman Gary Wieber,
Arve Grimsmo, Ron Hogl 'nd, Shelly JOhnson, Harvey
Kendall, Dale Lungwitz, Bud Schrupp, Don Smith, John
Bondhus, Bruce Gagnelis, Tom Eidem, and Allen Pelvit.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of t e Meeting Held June 21, 1984.
Old Business
3. IDC's Subcommittee Report on Comprehensive Plan.
4. Final Review of Annual Banqu
New Business
.
5. Consideration of Industry Ap reciation Day.
6. Consideration of Possible To ics for 1985 Banquet Speaker.
7. Progress of Developers Surve .
8. Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
.
.
MI UTES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, June 2 , 1984 - 7:00 A.M.
Monticello City Hall
Members Present:
Co-Chairman Ja
Wieber, Arve G
Johnson, Harve
Schrupp, Don S
Members Absent:
John Bondhus,
Morrell, Co-Chairman Gary
imsmo, Ron Hoglund, Shelly
Kendall, Dale Lungwitz, Bud
ith, Tom Eidem, and Allen Pelvit.
ruce Gagnelius.
Co-Chairman Morrell opened the meting. Arve Grimsmo motioned
to approve the May 15, 1984, min tes and was seconded by Ron
Hoglund. Passed unanimously.
The first item on the agenda, Re iew of the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan, was explained by Tom Eidem. Tom stated that although
the Planning Commission, Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
and the City Council have all ad pted their revisions, the IDC
should still review and revise p rts of the Plan pertaining
to industrial and commercial dev lopment. If changes are needed,
they can be adopted after the pr liminary draft is established.
.
After much discussion concerning
and any deviations its governing
suggested forming a sub-committe
regarding industrial development
district. Gary Wieber, Bud Schr
on this sub-committee. A second
Harvey Kendall, Shelly Johnson,
to review community development
meeting was set and the results
be given to the City.
philosophy on ordinances
make, Chairman Morrell
to review goals and policies
and the commercial business
pp, and Don Smith will sit
sub-committee consisting of
nd Dale Lungwitz was formed
oals and pOlicies. A July 12
nd/or recommendations will
Allen explained that the first t ade show the Committee attended
provided some good leads. Howev r, the second show was not
as successful. He further expla"ned that if the Committee wished
to use this type of media for ad ertising that more appropriate
trade shows be attended. Allen uggested that we get the information
from Brede, Inc., and then atten different trade shows as scouts.
One year from now we can judge w ich shows warrant our attendance
as an exhibition in the future. Allen will provide a list of
potential trade shows for future
Review of the 1984 IDC Annual Ba quet was #5 on the agenda.
Jay briefly went over the compar"son between our goal (160)
and the actual (108) tickets sol. At first it was thought
.
- 1 -
.
IDC Minutes - 6/21/84
the results were not good. Upon ore in-depth analysis, the
actual ticket sales produced over $2,000.00 more in net profit
than in 1983. Bud added that several individuals who came but
did not pay for tickets or said they would attend and did not
would be sent a reminder. He tho ght it was possible to receive
another $1,000.00, thus putting us only $1,500.00 below our
goal for net profit.
Dale Lungwitz asked how the number of tickets sold compared
to previous years. Allen stated that records documenting the
1983 Banquet were not available. However, the checkbook indicated
$7,100.00 deposited and expenses of approximately $2,500.00,
thus giving a net profit of $4,6 0.00. It was the Committee's
concensus that the turnout was v ry good and the Committee will
feel the results of having our S ate Senator and Representative
as well as state officials prese for quite some time.
.
Don Smith encouraged the
as a failure because the
short of the goal (which was set
state officials was extremely in
also felt that selling the first
at $25.00 would draw more people
With approximately $20.00/person
the second ticket to maybe $40.0
$50.00 second).
Don stated that the Committee sh
that 110 people attended the ban
visibility and still made over $
1983. Maybe the structure is go
He further stated that Terrell T
will be of more benefit such as
for Key Tool and Plastics.
e not to look at the banquet
it was $1,500.00 to $2,000.00
very high). The exposure with
aluable to Monticello. Don
ticket at $75.00 and the second
but not increase our profit.
expense, we would have to increase
or $50.00 ($75.00 first, and
uld not lose sight of the fact
uet. We had some terrific
,000.00 more in profit over
d and should be left as is.
wers knows Monticello now and
elping with a financial package
Bud recommended making the first ticket $75.00 and the second
ticket $35.00 for 1985. Allen w'll work up an analysis on this
for future use. Gary Wieber sta ed that he would rather see
$75.00 for the first ticket and 50.00 for the second ticket.
Arve Grimsmo stated that he supp rted Gary's suggestion. It
was also the Committee's cons ens s that this is a fund raiser
and we operate off of the profit Therefore, we should consider
$75.00 and $50.00. Bud Schrupp oved to amend his previous
$75.00 for the first ticket and 35.00 for the second to $75.00
for the first and $50.00 for the others. It was seconded by
Gary Wieber and passed unanimous
The Committee then recommended h ving our state politicians
attend in the future and also ge someone from the private sector
.
- 2 -
1___
IDC Minutes - 6/21/84
.
for guest speaker. Arve suggeste that Dale contact Sung Won
Son. Dale stated that Norwest does not allow him to go out
much because if they did he'd be one all the time. When he
does speak, there is a $2500. fee. It was then suggested that
Harvey Kendall pursue someone fro NSP to be guest speaker next
year, and the date was set at May 20, 1985. It was suggested
that we pursue NSP Chairman.
Chairman Morrell also asked Harve
the tape from Channel 5 that feat
He suggested using this tape for
Chamber meeting.
if he could get a copy of
red NSP and their FLEX benefits.
presentation at an evening
.
Allen briefly explained the Star ity road signs to the Committee.
Some members stated that they have seen the sign in Delano.
Allen explained that Delano made their own signs but were also
nice. It was the consensus of the Committee to purchase the
signs. Tom Eidem suggested that he City buy at least two signs
for the freeway and not take it 0 t of this Committee's budget.
It was the Committee's consensus to purchase four (18" x 84")
signs and place them on both ends of 1-94 and Highway 25. Tom
Eidem suggested having the City p rchase two 18" x 84" signs
for 1-94 and two 18" x 30" signs for our existing road signs
on Highway 25. Arve suggested ha ing six new signs, all with
the same message. Jay Morrell as ed the Committee to direct
Arve, Tom, and Allen to pursue purchasing the signs. They have
the authorization to use IDC funds if needed. Bud Schrupp motioned
to have this sub-committee purchase the signs and Dale Lungwitz
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
Consideration of a thank-you ad for those contributing to the
Annual Banquet was considered appropriate. It was felt that
it would help promote ticket sales for 1985. Arve made a motion
that we run the ad, giving next year's date (May 20, 1985).
It was seconded by Don Smith and assed unanimously. Bud suggested
we wait approximately two weeks f r some of the extra money
to come in. A July 5 deadline was set. Bud also stated that
a complete and accurate list has een compiled on those who
bought tickets and attended, etc.
Jay Morrell reviewed his thoughts on how and why he came about
considering a survey/questionnaire for developers who expand/relocate
into Monticello. After much disc ssion on this, it was recommended
that John Bondhus and Tom Eidem p epare such a survey/questionnaire.
It was suggested by Tom that the urvey could be handled by
telephone. Jay felt a letter sho ld accompany the survey informing
them that a telephone call would follow. This would allow the
proper consideration be given for each project.
.
- 3 -
.
It was suggested to interview all
months and all developers in futu
to sit on this sub-committee also
the Committee by July 15, 1984.
IDC Minutes - 6/21/84
developers for the past 18-24
e projects. Ron Hoglund volunteered
They will report back to
Various informational topics such as STP, Key Tool & Plastics,
Inc., Fulfillment Systems, Inc., nd Stuart Hoglund were discussed.
There being no further business, he meeting was adjourned.
Allen L. Pelvit
Director of Economic Development
.
.
/
.
IDC Agenda - 7/19/84
3. IDC's Subcommittee Report on Comp ehensive Plan. (A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the 6/21/84 meeting, Tom Eidem
I
far with regard to updating and rl
Guide Plan. He further explained
the Planning Commission, HRA, and
the IDC also review sections pert
District and Industrial Developme
Separate subcommittees were forme,
Schrupp, Gary Wieber, and Don Smi
Goals and Policies; and Harvey Ke
Dale Lungwitz were in charge of C
and Policies. Tom suggested the
their recommendations to him prio
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
explained the progress thus
-evaluating the City's Comprehensive
the evaluation process with
the City Council and suggested
ining to the Central Business
t.
to review these areas. Bud
h were responsible for Industrial
dall, Shelly Johnson, and
mmunity Development Goals
subcommittees meet and return
to July 15.
No action need be taken at this time. Both subcommittees have
met and gave a report of their fi dings to City staff.
.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation is necessary.
wish to discuss a particular area
Industrial Development Goals and
within the one hour time allotted
should be brief.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Refer to your copies of Goals and
Guide Plan; Brief summary of each
Copy of a recommended change for
.
he Committee as a whole may
regarding Commercial and/or
olicies. However, to remain
for the meeting, all comments
Policies Section of the Comprehensive
subcommittee's recommendation;
age 50, Item 4.
- 1 -
RECOMMENDATION #1:
COMMUNITY EVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
.
After reviewing all sections of t e above goals and pOlicies,
this subcommittee has come to the conclusion that two areas
raised some concern.
In the Community Development Goal section, Item #13 proposes
to eliminate all instances of hou ing blight (dilapidation,
poor maintenance, etc.) as rapidl as possible. The subcommittee
felt that this was a good goal. he Community Development Policy
section, numbers 14 and 16, state that "All land should be free
from noxious weeks, litter, debri , inoperative automobiles,
junk, hazards, and other undesira le influences", and "smoke,
noise, dust, litter, vibrations, eeds, soils, erosion, junk,
and other undesirable elements mu t be controlled by "performance
standards" in zoning regulations nd other codes and ordinances".
The subcommittee felt these were oth good pOlicies. However,
they noted that they were not bei g enforced. They understand
that there are underlying circumstances for not enforcing a
particular situation, but afterall, a policy is a policy and,
therefore, should be adhered to.
The subcommittee's recommendatio
as in the Guide Plan and encoura
falling into either section on b
.
.
is retain the Goals and policies
e the City to enforce all situations
ight, noise, etc.
(i)
.
RECOMMENDATION #2:
INDUSTRIAL EVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
After reviewing the above Goals and Policies, the subcommittee
expressed some concern with Item .#4 (excellence of site and
building design will be a major factor in approving or disapproving
industrial development proposals ithin the City).
The subcommittee felt this was nt an adequate way to judge
a proposals merit. For example: A developer could have an
excellent proposal but be reject d because they proposed a certain
type of building. Let's assume hat the City states that metal
buildings will be given a low priority because they tend to
look bad after a few years. Thi proposed metal building may
have a brick facade and look att active for many years.
The subcommittee recommends that the wording be changed to the
following:
4. Site and building design exc lIenee will be encouraged for
industrial development propo also
.
.
@
F f.()!J.: I I _ _. Ill. I
fOl1OU1\lf_1\OI ~
......
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
RE: Goals and policies Comments
plan prior or in unison with their
also gives greater responsibility
guiding of the future development
Page 46, Item 10
tt.,...t)
'b~~L. t.\ fC.6J
Page 2
more finalized plan approvals. This
to the Planning Commission and its
f the City.
In adopting this Housing Policy, the City should further state that
additional review of the Comprehen ive plan and its future amendment is
necessary prior to considering a ultiple housing development in the
sensitive Mississippi River Corr.dor. Without some clarification,
the possibility of a piecemeal t pe request for multiple housing on
unconsolidated lots may spring fo th and not blend into the existing
neighborhood or meet the overall d.rectives of the Comprehensive plan.
Page SO, Item 4
Older industrial parks or developments that had little
concern for quality or aesthe ics, or proper utility and road
structures have very quickly lost their overall value and have become a
blighted scar to the community in which they are located. For the last
20 years industrial parks, highl designed and controlled with high
quality buildings and landscape 9 rroundings, have turned out to be a
very wise long-term investment fr m the view point of both the City and
the property owner. To abandon q ality at this point, will devalue the
City in such a fashion as to lose its competitive edge for quality and
sought-after industrial-type deve opments.
Under the economic strain that e find today, we perhaps get many
requests for the lessening of our standards. The only area I could see
something reasonably happening i Monticello would be in the response
to a desire for a less expensive industrial area that primarily serves
an agricultural base. To assis farmers in acquiring supplies at a
very reasonable cost, I think auld be a worthwhile venture. The
lessening of standards in this di ection, though should be coupled with
a guaranteed low-cost service to the customer and not a higher profit
to the owner and developer. This agricultural type industrial use may
actually be temporary in natur and thus have a flexible set of
standards. All other develop [m nt should meet the highest standards
that the City of Monticello has lready set.
Page 51, Item 1
The park policy should really f, eus in on a balanced program. Both
acquisition and development are mportant and should be weighted evenly
as development continues in the City of Monticello. Under a balanced
park program policy, the c ndition of over acquisition and
under-development would be addre sed by having park development take a
@
._~..__,._._.",...,.,...___,_,.,~..,__..",..~._." "",.,__~.'~'~',W'~_ __.,___.~w_~,,,~.,_,_,...,,...,..~_,...,~_.,~~.~'r".
.
4. Final Review of Annual Banquet.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
IDC Agenda - 7/19/84
A.P. )
At the 6/21/84 meeting, the Commi tee reviewed the annual banquet.
In particular, ticket sales, net ,rofit, and ticket price for
1985 were discussed in detail.
As of 6/21/84, the net profit was
letters were sent to some firms r
to Monticello. Allen further sta
be prepared using the $75.00 firs
ticket amounts.
$6,422.00. Allen stated that
minding them of their commitment
ed that an analysis would
ticket and $50.00 second
Another area acted on was the adv rtisement thanking those who
contributed to the annual banquet
Since the June meeting, we have r ceived $1,100.00. Most of
this was clear profit. The end r suIt is that this year's banquet
(1984) netted us $7,522.20 profit (Exhibit A). Under Exhibit
B, we would have netted only $5,5 6.92.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Retain the 1984 $75.00 for al tickets.
.
2. Proceed with the Committee's uggested $75.00 first ticket
and $50.00 for additional tic ets.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
The ultimate goal of this annual
If the Committee wishes to go wit
$50.00 per ticket thereafter, it
tickets to net the same profit.
42% more tickets would be needed
in 1985 as in 1984. A 49% increa
We increased our ticket sales by
we increase it another 42% in 198
the $75.00 amount for all tickets
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibits A and B.
.
anquet is to raise funds.
the $75.00 first ticket and
ould take an additional 50
his indicates that an additional
ust to make the same net profit
e in ticket sales is not impossible.
his amount in 1984, but can
? I recommend that we retain
.
108 @ $75.00 Each
Less Expenses:
Food - 105 x 11.25 =
Bar - (4.05/person)=
Appetizers-(2.18/person)=
Gratui ty =
Less Montage
Net Profit
.
EXHIB T A
$75.00 Each
$8,575.00
$1, 15.00
$ 35.80
$ 235.00
$ 182.00
$2,067.80
Since this analysis of 6/21/84, $ ,100.00 has been received. This
is due to the reminder letter sen out.
$6,507.20
$
85.00
$6,422.20
$6,422.20 + $1,100.00
$7,522.20 Net Profit.
.
6'-.~..
tf/
,....-....
.
EXHI IT B
$75.00 1st Ticket, $50.00 2nd Ticket
71 @ $75.00
50 @ $50.00
121
Expenses:
Food (121 x 11.25)
Bar (121 x 4.05)
Appetizers
(121 x 2.18)
Gratuity =
Net Profit
.
.
$ ,325.00
$ ,500.00
$7,825.00
$ ,361.25
$ 490.05
$ 263.78
$ 203.00
$2,318.08
$5,506.92
@
.
IDC Agenda - 7/19/84
5. Consideration of Industry Appreci tion Day. (A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mid-september is only two months way, giving the Committee
just two regular meetings to lay he groundwork for this year's
Industry Day. Last year's Apprec'ation Day did not give the
results that we had anticipated. Some individuals felt we didn't
attract any individuals representing prospective industries, some
felt the Committee spent too much money, some thought the event
was too formal, while others felt it wasn't appropriate to have
a party for business in general. There were also those in favor
of the Industry Appreciation Day.
.
Co-Chairman Morrell requested th
Recertification requirements for
this with Bob Stern, and he indi
but looked upon favorably. I al
office at the Minnesota Departme
They no longer require this even
Mr. Stern also indicated that ot
as much effort into the event as
this with Bob, I asked what type
did for their Industry Appreciat
some of them:
_ Have a luncheon with indu
_ Take tours of Monticello'
_ Have Mayor proclaim sept
Appreciation Day (utiliz'
_ Have golf outing/picnic f
only; and
_ Committee visitations to
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
t I check on the Star City
the Industry Day. I discussed
ated that it wasn't required,
o checked with Harry Rosefeldt's
t of Energy and Economic Development.
in the Recertification process.
er Star Cities have not put
Monticello has. In discussing
of activities other cities
on Day. The following were
try representatives;
industries (open to public);
mber officially Industry
press coverage);
r industry representatives
arious industries.
1. Retain present style of gol outing/dinner event.
2. Change the event back to go f/picnic type affair.
3. Establish a new type of App eciation Day for industry.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Comm ttee discuss a combination of
activities listed in "A" above. It is further recommended that
since this is not a Star City r quirement, the Committee try
to utilize this day to visit it industry, as well as show them
your appreciation.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
- 3 -
IDC Agenda - 7/19/84
.
6. Consideration of Possible Topics for 1985 Budget Speaker. (A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
It was the consensus of the Comm"ttee to have Harvey Kendall
pursue NSP's Chairman of the Boa ,d, Don McCarthy, as guest speaker
for 1985's banquet. Since June' meeting, Harvey has inquired
into having Mr. McCarthy speak a the banquet. NSP is a large
company and plans their schedule well in advance. It looks
as though Mr. McCarthy will consider speaking at the banquet
but would like to know what topio we wish him to speak on.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Suggest three topics for Mr. cCarthy to choose from.
3.
List several areas ranging fr
& Monticello) to nuclear powe .
economic development (NSP
2. Suggest only one topic, thus aking his speech limited.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
.
1984's guest speaker was a succes
that would have been appropriate.
in the private sector and has a m
I feel that the Committee should
and then submit them to NSP via H
in Alternative #3.
and there was only one topic
However, Mr. McCarthy is
ch wider range of expertise.
iscuss possible topic areas
rvey Kendall as suggested
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
.
.
.
.
7. Progress of Developers Survey. (A P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
IDC Agenda - 7/19/84
Co-Chairman Jay Morrell suggested, that the Committee develop
a questionnaire or survey form th t could be sent to all businesses
that expand, relocate, or start al firm in Monticello. Ron Hoglund,
John Bondhus, and Tom Eidem worke on and prepared a preliminary
draft that will, when completed, I e sent to all developers for
the previous past 18 months and a 1 future developments. Plans
are to mail the questionnaire to the developer and then follow
up either in person or by telephone to obtain the information.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The Committee as a whole is ncouraged to give their comments
on the survey/questionnaire.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Be prepared to give your comment at the 7/19/84 meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the preliminary survey.
- 5 -
.
.
.
-,. ,. ._.....,.".~".c''';''"''.'''"..."..:'rl
In an effort to evaluate City policies and personnel with respect to new
con!3truction of commercial and industr' al facilities, we are requesting
your cooperation in answering the foll wing questions. We are asking
that you consider the questions, but y u need not write out your answers.
Within a week to ten days someone will contact you to make an appointment
to discuss these questions with you. t that time, in order to SUpplement
these general questions, we request th't you cite as many specifics as
possible.
1 ) Was your project: 1. New Const uction ,b,fl'l/~
2. Expansion
3. Remodelin
2 ) Did your project require a penni t? ~1I4,fJ'
3) Did your project require a al Use?
3a) Wan it granted?
3b) If yes, were any conditions otler than those itemized in the
Zoning Ordinance attached to y ur permit?
Jc) l'lho legis1a ted those added conl, i Lions?
Ci ty Staff
Planning Commission
City Council
4) Did your project require a Variance or Variances?
4a) If more than one, how many?
4b)
What type(s)
'\"""'(
Were", reasons
of Variance(s) was
c..t>..~~.\-1 n,
for the Variance(s
^ ,
4c)
4d) How many were granted?
were requested?
~ .~(: '"
"\ tt I
bas~d on financial
I 1\
considerations?
48) Did your request have City Staf Support?
4f) If denied, at what level?
Pl nning Commission
Ci y Council
4g) Was the denial explained satisf ctorily to you?
4h) If approved, was it approved as requested or in an altered form?
41) Did the approval cause a substan ia1 Change in your project?
I
(j)
"
5)
Did you inquire as to governmental financial incentives and/or assistance?
5a) What type?
Industrial Revenue Bonds
Tax Increment Financing
Government Grants (specify)
Other (specify)
.
Sb) Was your request granted or denied?
5c) If denied, was the denial explained satisfactorily to you?
5d) If approved, did it cause a substantial change in your proposal?
t1~,
6) Did your proje...~,~~qu~re' special considerations ,....i th respect to municipal
sewer and~.... ~ 't~~~
~t\ \~.Y
6,~\~~~;t~pe? Oversizing
(' <\S.,'i' Extension of, new lines
'J~ 'w:,. Sewer pre-treatment
, Other (specify)
6b) Were these special provisions approved or denied?
6e) If denied, was the denial explained satisfactorily?
6d)
If approved, was the approval granted with relati~e eas~or
you feel ou had to "fight" for it? , ~t_____r
(some or no convincing reqUirCdI>-'~ -
did
--f~
.
The following questions relate to City personnel. We hope you will answer
candidly; name names if you can.
7) What City personnel did you deal with in processing your proposal?
City Administrator
Assistant Administrator
zoning Administrator
Director of .Economic Development
Director of Public Works
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Planning Commission
Ci ty Council
7a) Were you treated politely?
Yes
No
By some, not others
7b) If not, which officers or boards were impolite?
.
- 2 -
(j)
i) I. . .._M.. ....._.....,"-.
. ,,,,,,,d~\' ."~"""",,". 'L\">'!~,I'...,...........
.~..-:..~,-
:~"'''''''''',&.._~'';
: ~~,~~~~"C,~',. :.........; ......;:'r .IM:__ L ....d.il.H" .. 11II
.
.
.
7c)
Was information conveyed for y
7d)
When you first made your propo
ge-~ "fQ~l~" that Ci t.y peLs
to your proposal?
u thOl-Oughly?
",,4. ~ .+t-'"----LA.......'-\ ~'^ (J ,'<:. 4,'
al, cl-id l.OI:1 clearly It""..., or --3Wr:H<: ..... u-v...
1 wtl.t' 'r' ,
nne was eceptlve 'b::r or reslstant
b....\ '10....... f...J+
If City personnel were unclear as to their position,^can you
identify what sorts of actions or words gave you the impression
they were opposed to your prop sal?
7e)
+~
v-.>--L/-<.-
fl I \ '".r't"
""'" ~'4.-ri
8) Overall, do you feel you were treat. d fairly? (We realize this question
is very broad; we are simply trying to determine what your final impression
is. )
9) When you talk with our interviewer, pl~ase feel free to expand on
this questionnairo, so that areas n t specifically addressed on this
form will still be included in our evlew.
- 3 -
(j)
.
.
.
'-r-'
,I
'i:
Iii
'I!
('j ftC '::, q r<r1'- j
II .-
f"T- 0 F_D_1d~f'!'~
-"1\: n'i oJ c: t'T.l t:: -\- l-.n 17. S. (JI'J ( ;tJ Cl.
Ii
II
~i .]-/"n, A(}o~+o
:\
~I ~
I' ^~ ~
~I IV,;:::::', .
"
il\
II
--IIQ~r~R L( ~ S Lo_Q~ 1-
F r< Or,^,
1_ <;C--:J
<5 "-~)
JL\
01=\:::\ C\;I tSlr:.~t .. C).. R~(h 0 ~~l '(}
8ee" '!~ Q ({l R.. IlU lC;) a 0 ~ f:..( C -C?.s ~
; - 7
l i"~ Q \'Y\ C) c' Q.te J) :5. fu TZJZ r:: I'l 0 rJ +- )
f(SJ.
. ( 0 F;C\ ~t Q IWA i<-u It 0 t;l
-g 4;Q cl w ?o ...~ 8[% ~ +- ~J-)o()
C, A ~R )
~)
1\ ~ rrt:)(
(
+t) ]L~_, ''f- CoCcV s.tOr?I-\~Q. t;Cr
\J (__J \. ,
( (-\DDr
12" " t
-..>Q.-c::. l
I f'.-.)
Lo G~ E\ i'>)
_': kQN +uc\cy \",L( Q cO cCn ck, N (U 1<1 u ~ uP
Ii
i
r\jJ (J /-t- I 0 1') )
,
" L
,I .:S A f)1 '-{ - ,s. {) A.J
~
?t'<GP<;/t.t-IQS - ('IlR LoI~'S,J/?Ik" )
ii
il
II
-ii 0 L.s~A:J c/. s:.o,0 s- .z lQ_ c-1- (<,,\ (
Iq
ill
il <:,' t-
il ""1 (u Q fl- . "'0"}... :T/<J .u
'i
_I,i ~~, ~\~N p~ y ( s
il
Ii
( Y'l \ L t"u A.J 04 Or--) )
(lhO.t!"..L QARV:j-51-GS ~ ('no tQL
"'I' U . '
i .
CA-th. du,' <1 (Y"tJ~;+1 b,0 J
I '
t1-D D ,i I b "J
,/~
-!Iw RI~ t Ca. \:)R0c(luC;l-s
i'
Ii
!
J).. - 'ft- 'x. ~ ~ 'D r:-p /c. es - I ut It'll i 0 (L LU A-U
I tlJ -rf1-ct (Ie Qi'rftR-fje..) .
---- (\ ) A " .
..J .Q A- tV is
0(.( CL. I}/...)/C) lii~(Du.: I\.,C,
(o-p ef() D cD-QL
~,
{ U~.R Rr 0(2. ~,
s QZ+?~
f I l [J ~Ii ()o
-. ....lC.) lie... l{ Iv IS u:.5 ' .
Iv
( }C:iO 0 r+(~ N uF
~ . '.1' ;
( :1 P L Qc -;:-' IJ<J
(7-,. -.) ,,(. cr'::::"
) C{ Cf,~'3 )
/
(i-J . (,,,
,/A) P(<OO.AQ:::; s J
.
- G .Q U--'
ol=F(CQ.
iY-cOb - ')
JL-} C J
(rY1~ ~,K\(
'V
' '
SfC (A-/,'J
,0
J'/"),t?)O(2f1Q((h2,h~ PUliS f",cO -(flJAR{j f.CROY" 5:,"Q2 )
Yh 00,0 tn tA 0 ;1-:':, C s. 10 i2. A (f-Bu I (D / ~o- J
IY1D -- D.ep-\-- Df l"/LI'lILlS C RQ~I cO Q m "',0-l E, LYo-J
Iilo-u-J-:, - 'G'b l Pc k z !+os PI +.,.l l d.e tv I"r~ IL) l"" "+10,, A~J1
IOs +f~(iJ+-f-( O~) J .
I i ~"(\^-~ 'fL. / Frt.1 ~ t""cD ~ c 1'1 (~Q, - (~_}~ Q m O(~\( \ /,01 ~ Q.( (~n p~,:
U {-SfR.
( 110 6/.j./u (') D F ld f} {l.l{o (-; T.~), '-f- /b o(_c/t\
RQ""oJJI~a --
? /2 () po:s ,~_O
,-
. "l,iJf'liR~+'_"AJPJ-t10NA"C r-6A~))c.._
: "'.",', ',i,',',."'f::",',' :,t, I,,"L' ".r--, ,."I,','.',",C-, C vn e,J, +,',",, , ,S,'~' c"..' J" QI'\~ST;lJ (
"11"")-- r- ' """ ,_) ~" , .-1-/~"
" ',"" ""'" , }
, ,::, , (,,+ --. ""- \ (
. Il, <;~(j i_"[(,",OC1." . ,> ~ r}cS --H __c) ],-
~ 'J$ o Nd)h c( j e~ To cl"
.
,: .1
l
(j)