Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2008-06-06 BOD Meeting
PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Hilton Beach Resort 560 South Collier Blvd, Marco Island, FL June 6, 2008 AGENDA 9:00 am Call To Order John Litton, Chairperson Consent Agenda 1. Request Approval of March 14, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes 2. Request Approval of Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2008 Any Board Member may request to have an item removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda for further discussion. Regular Agenda 3. Broker's Report Andy Cooper, World Risk Management. A. Marketing Report B. PRM Program — Did You Know? C. Insurance Marketplace Update D. Statutory AD &D Policy for Police Officers and Firefighters 4. Insurance Consultant's Report A. PRM: Review of the Past Five Years Glenn Tobey, Tobey & Associates 5. Election of Officers John Litton, Chairperson 6. Executive Committee Report John Litton, Chairperson A. Executive Director Evaluation and Recommended Salary for FY 2008/09 7. Safety Performance Awards Rob Ross, PRM Sr. Loss Prevention Consultant 8. Legal Update Donovan Roper, Roper & Roper, P.A. A. Applicability of Parentally Signed Releases/Waiver to their Children B. Vocational Issues in FL Workers' Compensation 9. Board Member Items A. Establish Board Meeting Dates for 2009 Public Comment: State full name and address. Discussion must be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes per person. Adjourn PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING June 6, 2008 CONSENT AGENDA SUMMARY 1. Request Approval of March 14, 2008 Board Meeting Minutes Board Meeting Minutes Attached 2. Request Approval of Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2008 Financial Reports Attached Board Action: ✓Approved Denied Deferred Other 1. BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2008 PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Terrace Hotel, Lakeland, FL March 14, 2008 MINUTES Attendance: Kathy Bennett, City of Avon Park; J. P. Murphy, Town of Belleair; Steve Baumgartner, City of Brooksville; Ted Byrd, City of Clewiston; Linda Stilson, City of Crystal River; Paul Erickson, DeSoto County BOCC; Mike Sheppard, City of Eustis; Phyllis Kirk, City of Fort Meade; Mary Ann Dotson, Glades County BOCC; Jennifer Valdes, City of Gulfport; Jane Long, Hardee County BOCC; Wayne O'Neal, Hendry County BOCC; John Minor, Highlands County BOCC; Martin Schless, City of Indian Rocks Beach; Nancy Beelman, Town of Kenneth City; Lisa Smith, City of LaBelle; Lori Beach, Town of Lady Lake; John Litton, City of Lake Mary; Pam Conner, Lee County Port Authority; Fred Moody, Levy County BOCC; Gerald Wilson, Town of Longboat Key; Carol Rogers, City of Longwood; Jeff Sutton, City of New Port Richey; Steve Gailbreath, City of North Port, Sharon Allison, City of Okeechobee; Robbie Chartier, Okeechobee County BOCC; Dan Hood, City of Oviedo, Shirley Dresch, City of Port Richey; Phil Wickstrom, City of Punta Gorda, John Schussler, Sarasota /Manatee Airport Authority; Mike Eastman, City of Sebring; Gary Behnke, City of St. Pete Beach; Dana March, Sun 'n Lake of Sebring Improvement District; Lori Tucker, City of Tavares; Woody Hubbard, City of Temple Terrace; James Braddock, City of Wauchula; Katrina Bouthot, City of Zephyrhills Vickie DelBosquez attended as a non - voting representative from the City of Pahokee. Absent: City of Belle Glade, Holmes County BOCC, Town of Lake Placid, City of Lake Wales, City of Moore Haven, City of Safety Harbor, South Florida Conservancy District, City of South Pasadena, City of Winter Garden Chairperson John Litton called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. with a quorum present. Consent Agenda 1. Request Approval of December 14, 2007 Board Meeting Minutes 2. Request Approval of Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 2007 Jane Long made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Carol Rogers seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Regular Agenda (World Risk Management representatives left the meeting at 9:13 a.m. prior to discussion of Item #3.) 3. Executive Committee Report A. Discussion of Arthur J. Gallagher's Interference with PRM Business Relationships; and Termination of Gallagher Bassett Services TPA Contract; and Discussion for Recommendation to the PRM Group Health Trust for Termination of the Gallagher Benefits Services Inc. Contract [Representatives from Sarasota /Manatee Airport Authority, Sun 'n Lake of Sebring, and City of Clewiston entered the meeting at 9:15 a.m., 9:16 a.m., and 9:20 a.m., respectively.] Mr. Litton reviewed attempts to retrieve commissions from A. J. Gallagher on cancelled ancillary policies as well as for 6 months' commission of approximately $32,000 for the City of Deltona and Hamilton County who left the Pool on 10/1/07. Carriers returned 6- months' premium, but it is A. J. Gallagher's contention that their commission is earned when coverage is placed. Mr. Litton advised all parties understood the possibility of the two members withdrawing and agreed to the return of commission /premium in the event of their withdrawal. Legal Counsel sent a "cease and desist" letter to AJG Corporate Office. Mr. Litton advised at this point PRM has three options: 1) Accept AJG's position and do nothing; 2) Pursue litigation — extremely costly; or 3) Contact Florida Department of Insurance. Therefore, on behalf of the Pool, Mr. Litton has written to the Office of Insurance Regulation in Tallahassee. [World Risk Management representatives rejoined the meeting at 9:21 a.m.] 4. Insurance Advisor's Report — Mr. Tobey indicated that World Risk Management did an excellent job on the renewal. A rate reduction was realized on all lines of coverage. However, there was a 12% increase in fees for Gallagher Bassett Services. During the past 18 months there have been no large catastrophe claims, and insurance companies are taking more risk in increasing liability capacity. Of particular concern is the number of withdrawal notices the Pool has received. Mr. Tobey offered assistance to those members on analyzing their insurance coverage quotations. 5. Broker's Report [Representative from Tavares entered the meeting at 10:30 a.m.] A. Insurance Renewal, Coverages and Limits — Mr. Cooper advised that Munich Re America amended the Workers Compensation limit to $350,000 excess of the $650,000 Self Insured Retention in the Coverage Document. The Loss Fund coverage remained the same as 2 last year. Property market has improved and the Pool has two options for Wind coverage, $175 million or $150 million. Based on modeling, the Executive Director and Executive Committee recommended the $150 million limit as this would provide adequate coverage for the Pool, as well as a premium savings of $365,000. Ms. Long made a motion to approve $150 million Wind coverage. Ms. Chartier seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Boiler & Machinery rates reduced 20% and Excess Liability premium reduced 8 %. Overall, there was a 7% reduction in the 2008/09 renewal. However, the Gallagher Bassett fee increased 12 %. TRIPPA (Terrorism) coverage was reviewed. Based on the Executive Committee's recommendation, Dan Hood made a motion to decline TRIPPA coverage on Property. Steve Gailbreath seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Fifteen members carry optional Excess Liability coverage above the PRM program coverage of $3 million excess of $2 million. J. P. Murphy made a motion to approve TRIPPA coverage for the optional Excess Liability coverage. Jerry Wilson seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved by the members carrying optional Excess Liability coverage. The final vote for TRIPPA coverage was on Pollution policies. Phil Wickstrom made a motion to accept TRIPPA coverage on Pollution policies. Nancy Beelman seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved by the members carrying Pollution policies. Mr. Sheppard made a motion to approve the 2008/09 renewal. Sharon Allison seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Discussion was held on the high renewal fee from Gallagher Bassett Services. The Executive Committee's recommendation is to research alternative third party claims administrators or administer claims in- house. Dan Hood made a motion for the Board to review options on third party administrators for claims processing and /or administering claims in- house. Wayne O'Neal seconded the motion, and it passed by majority vote with one opposed (Lee County Port Authority). 6. Executive Director's Report A. AGRIP Conference — Mr. Litton, Mr. Sutton and Mr. Furry will attend the AGRIP Conference from March 15 -19 in Phoenix. B. CSX Railroad Charged with 199 Safety Violations — Mr. Furry indicated that most members have agreements with CSX that requires the member to indemnify CSX. The railroad was recently charged with 199 safety violations in 23 states. 3 C. Educational Conference Update — Ms. Hearn advised invitations were sent to Board Members and Alternates. Lt. Governor Jeff Kottkamp is scheduled to be the Keynote Speaker on Thursday afternoon. The Board Meeting will be held Friday morning. D. Request Approval of 2008 -09 Administrative Budget — Mr. Furry advised that, in transitioning the program from October 1 to April 1, the final phase was to adjust the budget to match the renewal. He indicated the budget was basically the same as last year with a nominal 3% increase in operating expenses and 4% increase in personnel budget. The Executive Committee recommended moving salary adjustments to April 1 as part of the transition. Carol Rogers made a motion to approve the 2008 -09 Administrative Budget, including salary adjustments for staff and the Executive Director effective 4/1/08. James Braddock seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. E. Member Notices to Withdraw 2009 — Seven members have to date submitted their notice of intent to withdraw: City of Avon Park City of Brooksville* City of Clewiston Lee County Port Authority City of Port Richey Sarasota/Manatee Airport Authority City of Temple Terrace *submitted notice more than once during 3 -yr. period Potential new members include the City of Venice, City of Bartow, and City of Inverness. Following the Executive Director's query, Mr. Wickstrom made a motion for PRM to purchase a master Statutory AD &D Policy for Police Officers and Firefighters. Mr. Gailbreath seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. 7. Chairperson's Item A. Executive Director's Evaluation — Forms will be sent to Board Members the end of March and are to be returned to Judy Hearn. 4 8. Legal Update A. 2009 Federal Law Changes on Medicare Set Asides and CMS Approval — Mr. Roper advised that a Medicare eligible, Workers Compensation claim of $250,000 or above requires approval by Medicare before settlement can be reached. Effective 7/1/09, no fault and third party liability claims will also be included, driving up costs and prolonging the life of claims. B. Public Records Request — To comply with a public records request from Lee County Port Authority, A. J. Gallagher was contacted to obtain supporting documentation. AJG provided a premium allocation spreadsheet, but would not supply supporting information, nor from 5 prior years as requested, citing the material as "proprietary". Since AJG did not stamp their paperwork "confidential & privileged ", under Florida law, AJG waived their right of confidentiality, and Mr. Roper indicated all information would fall under public records. The contract between PRM and AJG prevented any AJG information being disseminated to third parties, but this fails to apply to Lee County Port Authority as they are a PRM member. Mr. Roper advised possible litigation from AJG may result in the release of records prepared by PRM staff and therefore requested a decision from the Board. Ted Byrd made a motion to release records to Lee County Port Authority. Gary Behnke seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. 9. PPO Network for the PRM Workers' Compensation Managed Care Arrangement — Mara Roth, Account Executive for Genex Services, presented a proposal to the Board to enhance the Workers Compensation managed care program. She recommended changing to the Rockport PPO network to establish a customized network of physicians. With the increase of presumption claims, some physicians were requiring payment up front. The current network provider, First Health, was unwilling to work with Genex to carve out physicians whereas Rockport will, as well as securing new physicians. Ms. Long made a motion to change to the Rockport PPO network provider for the PRM Workers Compensation managed care program. Ms. Allison seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. 10. Board Member Items A. Election of Officers — June Board Meeting — Mr. Litton advised the terms for Chairperson and Treasurer expire 9/30/08 and elections will be held at the June Board Meeting. Individuals interested in serving in either capacity should submit their self - nomination and bio to PRM by May 1St. Nominations will also be taken from the floor. 5 There was no public comment. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Judith A. Hearn Assistant Executive Director Secretary to PRM Board JAH:smb O:\Judy \BD MTGS \Board of Directors Meeting 3 -14 -08 MARCH 14, 2008 @ 10:00 A.M. Avon Park, City of Belleair, Town of Belle Glade, City of Brooksville, City of Clewiston, City of Crystal River, City of DeSoto County BOCC Eustis, City of Fort Meade, City of Glades County BOCC Gulfport, City of Hardee County BOCC Hendry County BOCC Highlands County BOCC Holmes County BOCC Indian Rocks Beach, City of Kenneth City, Town of PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING LAKELAND, FLORIDA 1' - As ArtaA9 Addi Kathy Sarah Adelt Murphy Susan Lee Vivian Hunter Jerry Hill Mike Sheppard Phyllis Kirk Robert Giesl Patrice Monaco Margaret Bosack Laurie Lindsey Paul Erickson Ann Isaacs Deena Ware 2 Dotson Danny Weeks Raymon Thomas Mart ►. Schless Monty Merchant Bert Valery ancy B e an Muriel H. Whitman LaBelle, City of Lady Lake, Town of Lake Mary, City of Lake Placid, Town of Lake Wales, City of Lee County Port Authority Levy County BOCC Longboat Key, Town of Longwood, City of Moore Haven, City of New Port Richey, City of North Port, City of Okeechobee, City of Okeechobee County BOCC Oviedo, City of Pahokee, City of Port Richey, City of Punta Gorda, City of Safety Harbor, City of Michael Boyle L Beach tton Arlene Tuck Sandra Davis Dawn Jackson Steve Gailbreath 9 &Ad, Robbie Chartier Connie Collins i ee Vitt reseli Shirley Y PlAfr Phil Wickstrom Bill Vance Jacqueline Soya Phil Williams Jacqueline Martin Tyymas Kelley ✓�-�� Carol Rogers Melissa Arnold Thomas O'Neill Sherry Borgsdorf Brian Whitehall ostGce -e, h4fl e. C.o 'in-Fh:ai7 Pam Ziegler David Drury Bill Cropsey Alan Zimmet Sarasota/Manatee Airport Authority Sebring, City of South Florida Conservancy South Pasadena, City of St. Pete Beach, City of Sun n' Lake of Sebring Tavares, City of Temple Terrace, City of Wauchula, City of Winter Garden, City of Zephyrhills, City of Martin Lange Jeff Carlson John Schussler Mike Eastman Stephanie Sparkenbaugh Mike Bonfield Ileana Martinez Crissy Bublitz Lori ' "ucker es Braddock Frank Gilbert Kim D. Leinbach Terri Svendsen Peggy Carpenter Ace .17k K;�.trina Bouthot Rick Moore GUESTS / ADDITIONAL ATTENDEE SIGN IN SHEET ♦ 4- ♦ MARCH 14, 2008 Name Entity / Company Signature "leer A_ /J_ et L r ffe' Vi L i Cot_ c a i - dzss f C( � Rik L.. CI L I A �� i Iva /tcC (Ail) iv/11211 eie iqgfifyi ifar d 2. TREASURER'S REPORT AS OF MARCH 31, 2008 PUBLIC RISK MGMT OF FL BALANCE SHEET MARCH 31, 2008 CURRENT ASSETS PETTY CASH $ 75.00 OPERATING - BB & T 44,458,024.46 OPERATING - REGIONS 12,816,401.46 A/R MEMBERSHIPS (1,305,822.49) A/R TRADE 3,218.46 A/R - PRM GR HLTH 136,869.21 A/R CONSULTANT FEE - MEMBERS 3,714.94 A/R- REINSURANCE RECOVERIES (5,471,051.25) A/R OTHER 2,254.66 A/R -STATE W/C ASSESSMENT (15,826.26) A/R- APPRAISALS 767.00 A/R - ADDITIONAL INSURANCE 501.21 A/R - SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM 8,300.00 DUE FROM MEMBERS 1,750,000.00 STATE ADMIN. FUND 1,918.04 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 52,389,344.44 PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT FURNITURE & FIXTURES 33,422.72 LESS: ACCUM. DEPRECIATION (31,038.77) OFFICE MACHINES & EQUIPMENT 62,802.48 LESS: ACCUM. DEPRECIATION (35,324.36) AUTOMOBILE 116,538.79 ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION (51,547.93) TOTAL PROPERTY & EQUIPMENT 94,852.93 OTHER ASSETS PREPAID INSURANCE (99,271.43) PREPAID FLOOD INSURANCE 94.49 PREPAID EXPENSES 24,634.79 DEFER MEMBER CONTR- 1987 -89 183,808.00 DEFER MEMBER CONTR- 1989 -90 295,679.00 DEPOSITS 5,665.06 TOTAL OTHER ASSETS 410,609.91 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ 187,000.74 A/P - GALLAGHER/RISX -FACS 435,691.16 FEDERAL TAXES PAYABLE (40.14) PEBSCO PAYABLE (542.49) A/P EMP LIFE INS (129.95) A/P - OTHER 4,840.49 A/P - LOSS PREVENTION 14,933.73 ACCRUED VACATION 41,121.55 ADVANCE FROM REINSURER 4,472,468.05 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1987 -89 93,737.13 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1990 -91 (4,657.18) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1991 -92 (62,711.82) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1992 -93 79,105.68 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1993 -94 34,793.35 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1994 -95 45,747.00 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1996/97 20,877.83 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1997/98 (51,777.88) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1998/99 (35,611.20) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 1999/00 (214,719.11) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2000/01 (376,700.60) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2001/02 (306,108.20) CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2002/03 894,442.25 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2003/04 777,415.26 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2004/05 2,244,924.63 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2005/06 2,833,636.07 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2006/08 13,056,541.12 CLAIMS PAYABLE - 2008/09 58,576.97 NONCURRENT CLAIMS PAYABLE (13,314,538.00) $ 52,894,807.28 PUBLIC RISK MGMT OF FL BALANCE SHEET MARCH 31, 2008 SUSPENSE - CLEARING ACCOUNT 13,314,538.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES 24,242,854.44 CAPITAL FUND BALANCE REVENUE IN EXCESS OF EXPENSE 27,555,329.01 1,096,623.83 TOTAL CAPITAL 28,651,952.84 TOTAL LIABILITIES & CAPITAL $ 52,894,807.28 REVENUES MEMBERSHIP ASSESSMENTS INTEREST INCOME TOTAL REVENUES EXPENSES OFFICERS' SALARIES OFFICE SALARIES PAYROLL TAXES EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT BENEFITS HEALTH INSURANCE- OFFICER HEALTH INSURANCE - OFFICE LIFE INSURANCE - OFFICER LIFE INSURANCE- OFFICE LTD INSURANCE LEGAL FEES AUDIT FEES ACTUARIAL STUDY APPRAISAL FEE EXPENSE AUTO EXPENSE AUTOMOBILES- REPLACEMENT TRAVEL EXPENSE ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EDUCATION/IRAINING /CONFER. OFFICE LEASE JANITORIAL / CLEANING OFFICE /COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TELEPHONE COPY MACHINE LEASE OFFICE SUPPLIES NEWSLEI PER POSTAGE PRINTING LOSS PREV EQUIP & SUPPLIES MARKETING & PROMOTION MEETING EXPENSE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE INSURANCE CONSULTANT GALLAGHER MGMT FEES GALLAGHER EXCESS INSURANCE CLAIMS EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES REVENUE IN EXCESS OF EXPENSE PUBLIC RISK MGMT OF FL INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDING MARCH 31, 2008 CURRENT MONTH (56,398.33) 131,700.84 75,302.51 7,779.15 30,760.23 3,216.18 1,222.16 1,421.16 9,330.60 78.30 159.51 1,136.44 2,315.80 0.00 14,507.50 1,375.00 266.09 0.00 4,554.00 0.00 354.95 3,595.05 6,190.52 630.00 1,375.00 1,412.48 203.00 1,390.92 0.00 1,372.80 0.00 1,712.92 100.00 3,761.61 351.23 18,166.67 96,413.17 1,454,635.83 1,197,969.67 2,867,757.94 $ (2,792,455.43) YEAR TO DATE 17,276,982.02 1,082,676.04 18,359,658.06 67,419.30 267,676.02 24,644.59 32,345.85 8,526.96 55,655.85 469.80 945.75 6,494.90 14,708.68 23,200.00 14,507.50 2,750.00 4,118.05 243.81 28,880.79 525.00 1,516.95 10,152.02 37,143.12 1,841.00 13,792.59 8,396.33 1,015.00 7,285.76 1,665.00 4,374.10 375.24 8,513.74 1,427.41 7,337.81 1,973.27 109,000.02 578,479.02 8,727,814.98 7,187,818.02 17,263,034.23 1,096,623.83 PUBLIC RISK MGMT OF FL EXPENSES TO BUDGET FOR THE Six MONTHs ENDING March 31, 2008 MONTHLY MONTHLY Y -T -D Y -T -D TOTAL YEAR % of YTD ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL SALARY RELATED EXPENSES OFFICERS' SALARIES 7,779.15 11,236.50 67,419.30 67,419.00 134,838.00 OFFICE SALARIES 30,760.23 44,431.33 267,676.02 266,588.02 533,176.00 PAYROLL TAXES 3,216.18 4,206.67 24,644.59 25,239.98 50,480.00 EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT BENEFITS 1,222.16 5,744.83 32,345.85 34,469.02 68,938.00 HEALTH INSURANCE - OFFICER 1,421.16 839.08 8,526.96 5,034.52 10,069.00 HEALTH INSURANCE- OFFICE 9,330.60 11,319.25 55,655.85 67,915.50 135,831.00 LIFE INSURANCE- OFFICER 78.30 83.67 469.80 501.98 1,004.00 LIFE INSURANCE - OFFICE 159.51 165.50 945.75 993.00 1,986.00 LTD INSURANCE 1,136.44 958.33 6,494.90 5,750.02 11,500.00 TOTAL SALARY RELATED EXPENSES 55,103.73 78,985.16 464,179.02 473,911.04 947,822.00 50.00 50.20 48.82 46.92 84.69 40.97 46.79 47.62 56.48 48.97 GENERAL EXPENSES LEGAL FEES 2,315.80 1,250.00 14,708.68 7,500.00 15,000.00 98.06 LEGAL - PRE - DEFENSE 0.00 416.67 0.00 2,499.98 5,000.00 0.00 AUDIT FEES 0.00 2,416.67 23,200.00 14,499.98 29,000.00 80.00 ACTUARIAL STUDY 14,507.50 1,166.67 14,507.50 6,999.98 14,000.00 103.63 APPRAISAL FEE EXPENSE 1,375.00 481.25 2,750.00 2,887.50 5,775.00 47.62 AUTO EXPENSE 266.09 400.00 4,118.05 2,400.00 4,800.00 85.79 AUTOMOBILES- REPLACEMENT 0.00 0.00 243.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRAVEL EXPENSE 4,554.00 2,500.00 28,880.79 15,000.00 30,000.00 96.27 ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS 0.00 166.67 525.00 999.98 2,000.00 26.25 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 354.95 266.67 1,516.95 1,599.98 3,200.00 47.40 EDUCATION/TRAINING /CONFER. 3,595.05 2,500.00 10,152.02 15,000.00 30,000.00 33.84 OFFICE LEASE 6,190.52 6,311.33 37,143.12 37,868.02 75,736.00 49.04 JANITORIAL / CLEANING 630.00 316.67 1,841.00 1,899.98 3,800.00 48.45 OFFICE /COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 1,375.00 1,500.00 13,792.59 9,000.00 18,000.00 76.63 TELEPHONE 1,412.48 2,166.67 8,396.33 12,999.98 26,000.00 32.29 COPY MACHINE LEASE 203.00 250.00 1,015.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 33.83 REPAIRS & MAINT. - EQUIPMENT 0.00 166.67 0.00 999.98 2,000.00 0.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,390.92 1,166.67 7,285.76 6,999.98 14,000.00 52.04 NEWSLETTER 0.00 333.33 1,665.00 2,000.02 4,000.00 41.63 POSTAGE 1,372.80 1,083.33 4,374.10 6,500.02 13,000.00 33.65 PRINTING 0.00 166.67 375.24 999.98 2,000.00 18.76 INSURANCE - FLOOD /GENERAL 0.00 250.00 0.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 0.00 LOSS PREV EQUIP & SUPPLIES 1,712.92 1,833.33 8,513.74 11,000.02 22,000.00 38.70 MARKETING & PROMOTION 100.00 375.00 1,427.41 2,250.00 4,500.00 31.72 MEETING EXPENSE 3,761.61 2,008.33 7,337.81 12,050.02 24,100.00 30.45 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 351.23 208.33 1,973.27 1,250.02 2,500.00 78.93 TRAINING /SEMINAR PRESENTATION 0.00 500.00 0.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 0.00 WEB SITE MAINT. 0.00 566.67 0.00 3,399.98 6,800.00 0.00 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 18,166.67 18,166.67 109,000.02 108,999.98 218,000.00 50.00 TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSES 63,635.54 48,934.27 304,743.19 293,605.38 587,211.00 51.90 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,739.27 127,919.43 768,922.21 767,516.42 1,535,033.00 50.09 PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING June 6, 2008 REGULAR AGENDA SUMMARY 3. Broker's Report Andy Cooper A. Marketing Report — Attachment B. PRM Program — Did You Know? C. Insurance Marketplace Update D. Statutory AD &D Policy for Police Officers & Firefighters 4. Insurance Consultant's Report Glenn Tobey A. PRM: Review of the Past Five Years RISK MANAGEMENT, LLC An Update on the Insurance Marketplace We would like to report on what we are seeing in the insurance marketplace. 2007 was another very good year for the U.S. property/casualty industry, but the year -end results fell short of the record profits reported in 2006. Total catastrophe losses were estimated at $6.7 billion in 2007, among the lowest years on record. This was down from the 2006 loses of $9.2 billion. It is good to keep in mind the 2005 catastrophe losses in the U.S. market of $56.8 billion which was the cause of the sharp increase in premiums in 2006. In the first three months of 2008 there have been an estimated $3.35 billion in insured property damage. This is the largest for any first quarter in the past decade and more than double the $1.26 billion in the same period last year. We will review the different lines of coverage separately. Property We continue to see reductions in the marketplace from the heights reached after the hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. Florida and the other catastrophe prone areas, such as California and Texas, are still rated higher for property than the non catastrophe areas. Insurers are using more refined models to determine the possible outcome of a catastrophe on their book of business. This would normally have the effect of raising rates. However, with the lack of a hurricane hitting mainland America and with more competition in the marketplace we are pleased to see property rates are continuing to fall. The property market is really a global marketplace these days, with events from around the world affecting the property insurers. Even without a hurricane hitting America there have been quite a few events that have affected the marketplace. Tornado losses have been higher than average so far this year, with already over $1 billion in damages. As of May 8th, 819 tornados had been reported in the United States with 99 fatalities. This is the most severe tornado series for 20 years. While hurricanes and earthquakes, on average, tend to generate higher losses per event, tornados and related weather events cause roughly 57 %, on average, of all U.S. insured catastrophe losses per year since 1953. The California wildfires caused insured losses of an estimated $1.6 billion, putting last years losses only second to the cost of the 1991 fires in Oakland and Alameda counties. Closer to home, the dry weather has seen an outbreak of wildfires in Florida. While these will not be on the same scale of the Californian fires they have caused the insurance industry sizeable losses. Some other events that have occurred this year do not necessarily impact the insurance industry to that great an extent. Burma has just suffered a terrible cyclone that killed 34,000 with a further 28,000 missing. China has suffered a devastating earthquake just this week with at least 15,000 people dead and 25,000 missing. The China earthquake produced estimated property damage of up to $15 billion, but only a small portion will be borne by the insurance industry. These events will not impact the markets as much as, say, a Californian earthquake would, but it follows the trend of severe weather occurrences. State Farm, Florida's largest private insurer, announced earlier this year that they are dropping 50,000 home policies issued to coastal residents, and they will cease writing new policies for homes. The company reports that since 1998, when it started writing policies in Florida, they have paid out $4.5 billion more in losses than they collected in premiums. The predictions for the 2008 hurricane season vary by source. However, most predictions are for a busier than usual season, with a good chance of at least one named storm making landfall in the U.S. Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray from the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University are renowned for their predictions. The following is an excerpt of their hurricane report that was updated in April: ATLANTIC BASIN SEASONAL HURRICANE FORECAST FOR 2008 Forecast Parameter and 1950 -2000 Climatology Issue Date Issue Date 12.7.2007 4.9.2008 Named Storms 13 15 Named Storm days 60 80 Hurricanes 7 8 Hurricane Days 30 40 Intense Hurricanes 3 4 Intense Hurricane Days 6 9 PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3 -4 -5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COASTAL AREAS: 1) Entire U.S. coastline - 69% (average for last century is 52 %) 2) U.S. East Coast Including Peninsula Florida - 45% (average for last century is 31 %) 3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville - 44% (average for last century is 30 %) 4) Above - average major hurricane landfall risk in the Caribbean How the insurance marketplace will develop in 2008 really depends on the hurricane activity. We are seeing more carriers enter the marketplace which is helping the rates to drop. If there is a quiet hurricane season the rates will continue to decline. However, if the predictions prove true all bets are off on what will happen to the property rates. Casualty Along with the property market the casualty marketplace has been experiencing falling rates. The decreases have not been as great as the property rates but then they did not go up as much after the hurricanes. As stated above, the carriers have reported very good results for 2007 and with a good year so far we expect to see the rates continue to decline. With more carriers entering the marketplace this will help keep the rates falling. Workers Compensation Workers compensation rates in Florida continue to fall which is due in large part to the rate reductions mandated by the State since 2003. We are seeing more carriers in the marketplace with an appetite for public entities. However, the presumption laws for police and fire still make some of these carriers wary of offering low attachment points. For an account such as PRM, most carriers require an attachment point of at least $1m, if not $1.25million or $1.5million. With workers compensation claims developing over many years it is important to look at a carrier's history in the State. We would generally recommend against choosing a carrier than jumps in and out of the State depending on the rates and how their corporate appetite changes. We prefer to see carriers that are in it for the long haul. The workers compensation market in general has been reporting good results. Although in 2008 we have seen the Imperial Sugar explosion in their Georgia refinery that killed 13 workers and left dozens injured. The losses from this one event are expected to exceed $50 million. This is the type of loss that concerns the WC industry, many workers involved in one loss. It is for this reason that the WC carriers have been interested in the concentration of workers in any one place since 9/11. Their interest has mainly been for terrorist events involving multiple employees, but the Georgia explosion has the same effect. Hopefully, we will not see any more losses like this one. The staff at WRM will continue to monitor the insurance marketplace and report on any developments throughout the policy period. Andy Cooper World Risk Management, LLC May 2008. PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING June 6, 2008 REGULAR AGENDA SUMMARY 5. Election of Officers John Litton The term of office for Chairperson and Treasurer will expire 9- 30 -08. Elections will be held for the 2 -year term, beginning 10 -1 -08. Incumbents John Litton and Mike Sheppard have submitted their willingness to continue serving in their respective capacities. Nominations will also be taken from the floor. Executive Committee: John Litton, Chairperson - October 2006 -2008 Jeff Sutton, Vice Chairperson — October 2007 -2009 Mike Sheppard, Treasurer — October 2006 -2008 Jennifer Valdes, North Representative, October 2007 -2009 Robbie Chortler, South Representative, October 2007 -2009 Chairperson Treasurer 7r' Si, 1c 1 Seeking re- election as Chairperson: John C. Litton Mr. Litton has spent more than 34 years in local government having first served as Director of Employee relations for the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, then Assistant City Manager of Winter Park for 10 years, and 19 years as City Manager of Lake Mary. Mr. Litton holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Maryland and spent 4 years in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. He started his public service career as a staff assistant to former Senator Frank Church of Idaho who at that time was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is a 1991 graduate of the Harvard Business School Local Government Public Policy Leadership Forum. Mr. Litton is still actively involved in many professional associations and organizations that are proudly included in his biography. He has also given back to the community in many ways including service on United Way distribution panels, American Cancer Society Board of Directors, and as a Dividend in the Seminole County School District to name a few. He has served on the PRM Executive Committee as both the North Board Representative as well as Chairman. Seeking re- election as Treasurer: William A. (Mike) Sheppard III Deputy Finance Director October 1988 to Present Mr. Sheppard came to the City of Eustis in October 1988 as the Deputy Finance Director, and has remained in this position to present. Previous employment included Sales Tax Auditor for the City of Fort Collins, Finance Director for RE/MAX International, Accountant for Stern Roger Engineering, as well as Auditor for two CPA Firms in the Denver Metro area. Prior to attending college he spent two years in the Army, from 1972 to 1974. Served as a medic and attained the rank of E-4. In January of 1975 Mr. Sheppard began college and graduated from Metropolitan State College in December of 1977, Magna Cum Laude. He passed the Colorado CPA exam and was award the certification in June of 1979. Other designations held include Certified Government Finance Manger (CGFM) through the Association of Government Accountants, and Certified Government Finance Officer (CGFO), through the Florida Government Finance Officer Association. Mr. Sheppard works with the external Auditors and in combination with the Finance Director and staff's efforts has been able to assist the city in attaining the Award of Excellence in Financial Reporting Achievement from the Government Finance Officer Association for the past 19 years. The bulk of the duties include the annual audit report, day to day operations of the programs within finance (Finance Services, Data Processing, Water Customer Service, Meter Reading, Property, Insurance & Records Management, and Information Technology). In 1992 the City of Eustis joined PRM's Insurance Pool. He was appointed as the voting member for the city. In 2000 Mr. Sheppard was elected to the executive board of Public Risk Management of Florida (PRM), and has served in this capacity to the present date. PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING June 6, 2008 REGULAR AGENDA SUMMARY 6. Executive Committee Report John Litton A. Executive Director Evaluation and Recommended Salary for FY 2007/08 The Executive Committee will review performance evaluations received from Board Members and Executive Committee and will make its recommendation to the full Board. Bo rd Action: Approved Denied Deferred Other PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING June 6, 2008 REGULAR AGENDA SUMMARY 7. Safety Performance Awards Rob Ross PRM will recognize members who have made significant achievements in the following categories: Best Overall Safety Performance Most Improved Safety Performance Accident Free for Vehicles 8. Legal Update Donovan Roper, Esquire A. Applicability of Parentally Signed Releases/Waiver to their Children Attached is a memorandum regarding recent changes in minors pre- incident releases being declared invalid by some courts. B. Vocational Issues in FL Workers' Compensation A recent decision in the case of Ferrell Gas vs. Childers broadens the definition of permanent disability from a purely physical exertion standard to a standard that considers the full range of vocational factors such as age, level of education, work experience and transferable skills, in addition to a claimant's residual physical capacity. Under this new standard, it is possible that a claimant with a physical capacity of Tight work may be found to be permanently disabled. Attachment 8.A. LEGAL UPDATE Applicability of Parentally Signed Releases/ Waivers to their Children MEMORANDUM FROM: Donovan A. Roper, Esquire RE: Applicability of Parentally Signed Releases/Waiver to their Children Recently, some new case law has created confusion regarding the applicability of waiver or releases signed, pre - injury, on behalf of a minor child. Generally, such releases have been previously upheld and used to bar later claims of an injured child. Parents could, essentially, sign away their child's right to sue if injured later in time. In fact, this still appears to be the law in the Third District Court of Appeal for Florida, per Krathen v. School Bd. of Monroe County, 972 So. 2d 887 (October 3, 2007). However, this case is currently on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, due to an express conflict ewith the 4th DCA in Fields v. Kirton, 961 So.2d 1127. This case's appeal status, like the other cases discussed below, show that this theory may be changing in Florida so that parentally signed pre - injury waivers are no longer binding on their children. The 4th DCA appears to be leading the way on this issue with the case of Fields v. Kirton, 961 So.2d 1127, decided August 8, 2007. In this case, a child was killed riding an ATV at a park. The child's parents had signed a release immunizing and releasing the ATV operator from all liability. Id. at 1128. The 4th DCA found that a parent could not waive the property right of a child and that, as a result, the child's estate was not barred from pursuing a claim against the ATV operator. Id. at 1129 -30. The court noted that this was in conflict with the 5th DCA case of Lantz v. Iron Horse Saloon, 717 So.2d 590 (1998), and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. Id. at 1130. The Florida Supreme Court will hear this appeal on June 11, 2008, and will hopefully resolve this issue outright with a subsequent written opinion. Similarly, the 5th DCA appears to be split on this issue as well and also has a case on appeal regarding this same issue. In Applegate v. Cable Water Ski, L.C., 974 So.2d 1112 (January 4, 2008), the 5th DCA followed the lead of the 4th DCA and found that an exculpatory clause in a summer camp contract signed by a parent was not binding on an injured minor. Id. The court felt that the state, using its parens patriae power, could intervene on behalf of the child to protect them from parental waiver. M. At 1114 -15. The court limited their holding to commercial enterprises and made a distinction between those and the programs put on by community based organizations. Id. However, the DCA then also certified the question, leaving this to appeal as well. As an aside, this issue does not appear to have been addressed in the 1St and 2nd DCA's at this time. So, it appears that this issue has divided the 3rd, 4th and 5th Florida DCA's will ultimately be handled by the Florida Supreme Court. Some guidance as to their potential decision, however, can be gleaned from a federal case that interpreted Florida law on this exact issue. In Re Complaint of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 403 F.Supp.2d 1168 (S.D. Fla. 2005). In that case, a minor sued for injuries sustained in a wave runner accident. The minor's parents had signed a waiver before renting the wave runner. Id. at 1169 -70. The Federal court found that, as this was a for profit, commercial enterprise, the parent could not bind a child with the signing of a pre - injury waiver. Id. at 1172 -73. This certainly gives some guidance as to where the Florida Supreme Court will go on this issue on June 11, 2008. 8.B. LEGAL UPDATE Vocational Issues in FL Workers' Compensation MEMORANDUM FROM: DONOVAN A. ROPER, ESQUIRE RE: VOCATIONAL ISSUES IN FLORIDA WORKERS' COMPENSATION A recent decision in the case of Ferrell Gas vs. Childers, (Fla. 1st DCA, April 7, 2008), a copy of which is enclosed for your review has somewhat changed vocational issues in Florida Workers' Compensation cases. This decision, in essence, broadens the definition of permanent disability from a purely physical exertion standard to a standard that considers the full range of vocational factors such as age, level of education, work experience and transferable skills, in addition to a claimant's residual physical capacity. Under this new standard, it is possible that a claimant with a physical capacity of even light work may be found to be permanently disabled when considered within the context of the claimant's entire vocational profile. With this broadened definition, I feel it important that both the claimant and the defense, in a workers' compensation claim, have well developed vocational opinions that consider the full range of vocational factors, not just whether the claimant is capable of sedentary work within 50 miles of their home. FERRELL GAS and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Appellants, v. NORMAN CHILDERS, Appellee. Opinion filed April 7, 2008. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D07 -1 824 An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Diane B. Beck, Judge. Jeffrey E. Appel of Appel & Gaines, LLP, Lakeland, for Appellants. Mark L. Zientz of Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami; and Alex Lancaster and Amy L. Sergent of Lancaster & Eure, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The employer /carrier challenge a workers' compensation order awarding permanent total disability benefits. They argue the judge of compensation claims should not have considered the claimant's vocational abilities in connection with his physical limitations in awarding benefits. Because these factors were properly considered, the appealed order is affirmed. The claimant suffered an industrial injury in 2004, for which the employer /carrier accepted compensability and provided medical care and indemnity benefits. However, they denied permanent total disability benefits on the basis that the claimant is physically capable of sedentary work. After an evidentiary hearing, the judge determined that while the claimant's physical limitations alone do not preclude him from engaging in sedentary work, the combination of his physical limitations and vocational abilities render him permanently and totally disabled. The current and applicable version of section 440.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides a list of injuries which presumptively qualify a claimant for permanent total disability benefits. The statute then provides that, in all other cases, the claimant "must establish that he or she is not able to engage in at least sedentary employment, within a 50 -mile radius of the employee's residence, due to his or her physical limitation." § 440.15(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Prior to 1 994, section 440.15(1)(b) required a claimant who did not have a listed injury "to establish that he is not able uninterruptedly to do even light work available within a 100 -mile radius of the injured employee's residence due to physical limitation." § 440.15(1)(b), Fla. Stat. ( 1993). 2 Under the pre-I994 version of section 440.15(1)(b), permanent total disability benefits may be based on physical restrictions and vocational factors which combine to preclude the level of work provided in the statute. See Commercial Carrier Corp. v. LaPointe, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Shaw v. Publix Supermarkets. Inc., 609 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Ist DCA 1992). The pertinent language in the current version of section 440.15(1)(b) is similar to the language under which this court has recognized that it is appropriate to consider both physical and vocational factors. Accordingly, such factors were properly considered in this case, and the order is affirmed. ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR; THOMAS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. 3 30 MAP OF APPELLATE DISTRICTS APPELLATE DISTRICTS FIRST: Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Nassau, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton and Washington Counties. SECOND: Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota Counties. THIRD: Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties. FOURTH: Broward, Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, Palm Beach and St. Lucie Counties. FIFTH: Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Hernando, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Putnam, St. Johns, Seminole, Sumter and Volusia Counties. Pin.. �St�.aw 976 So.2d 31 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 (Cite as: 976 So.2d 31) Board of County Com'rs of Highlands County v. Colby Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2008. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. The BOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS OF HIGHLANDS COUNTY, Florida; Carl E. Cool, Sr., as Highlands County Administrator, agency head, and statutory records custodian; Sarah Beth Hopton, as Designated Records Custodian for the Board of CountyCommissioners; William Nichols, Highlands County Emergency Management Direct- or as actual records custodian, Appellants/ Cross - Appellees, v. Preston H. COLBY, Appellee /Cross - Appellant. No. 2D05 -5348. Jan. 25, 2008. Rehearing Denied March 17, 2008. Background: Citizen who made public records re- quest to county for records relating to hurricane preparedness group brought action against county alleging failure to fully respond to his request and challenging the special service charge assessed by county in advance. The Circuit Court, Highlands County, J. David Langford, J., ruled that county could not include benefits when calculating the labor cost for the special service charge, but impli- citly ruled that the charge could be collected in ad- vance. County appealed, and citizen cross -ap- pealed. Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Northcutt, C.J., held that: (1) statute authorizing special service charge did not limit labor cost to wages, and (2) county could collect a deposit on the charge in advance. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. West Headnotes Page 1 of 6 Page 1 111 Records 326 €30 326 Records 32611 Public Access 326I1(A) In General 326k30 k. Access to Records or Files in General. Most Cited Cases In Florida, access to public records is a matter of such importance that it is constitutionally guaran- teed. West's F.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 24(a). (2] Records 326 €=>15 326 Records 3261 In General 326k15 k. Making and Use of Copies. Most Cited Cases Statute that required the special service charge as- sessed by a public records custodian when respond- ing to a substantial records request to be based on the "labor cost of the personnel providing the ser- vice" did not limit such labor cost to the wages of the personnel providing the service, and thus county that responded to citizen's request for re- cords relating to hurricane preparedness group could assess a special service charge based on the responding employee's salary and benefits; benefits were widely understood to be a significant part of labor costs, and legislature was assumed to know the difference between labor costs and wages. West's F.S.A. § 119.07(4). 131 Records 326 ,E)=.15 326 Records 3261 In General 326k15 k. Making and Use of Copies. Most Cited Cases County that responded to citizen's public records request for records relating to hurricane prepared- ness group could collect a deposit in advance to pay the statutorily- authorized special service charge, so long as deposit was reasonable and based on the labor cost actually incurred by or attributable to © 2008 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2. westlaw. com/print/printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = _top &mt = Flo... 6/3/2008 976 So.2d 31 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 (Cite as: 976 So.2d 31) county. West's F.S.A. § 119.07(4). *32 J. Ross Macbeth, Sebring, for Appellants/ Cross - Appellees. James F. McCollum of James F. McCollum, P.L., Sebring, for Appellee /Cross - Appellant. NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge. In this case, we approve Highlands County's for- mula for calculating its special service charge for responding to extensive public records requests. We hold that the cost of labor, which is the statutorily prescribed basis for the charge, may include *33 both salary and benefits. Accordingly, the circuit court's ruling to the contrary is reversed. We affirm the final judgment in all other respects, including that portion which approved the County's policy of requiring an advance deposit. The main legal issue requires our de novo review on a question of statutory construction. See Bell- South Telecomms., Inc. v. Meeks, 863 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla.2003). For this reason, there are very few facts directly relevant to our decision. Just the same, we find it worthwhile to describe the back- ground to this dispute. When attending a 2005 hurricane preparedness workshop hosted by Highlands County, Preston Colby learned of a group of local government offi- cials and employees that had met during the 2004 hurricane season. This group, referred to in the workshop as the Hurricane Executive Decision Group, consisted of representatives from several county departments, the three municipalities in Highlands County, the sheriffs office, and the school board.FNI Colby was particularly concerned about whether the group was a collegial body sub- ject to the government -in- the - sunshine Iaws.FN2 In response to Colby's inquiry at the meeting, the County's emergency management director, Bill Nichols, allegedly stated that minutes had been kept but the meetings had not been noticed.FN3 In fact, the County had four file boxes of documents relat- ing to the group's activities during the 2004 hur- ricane season. Page 2 of 6 Page 2 FN I . In a workshop handout, the County described the group as one that usually meets 3 -5 days prior to stone ar- rival and participates in conference calls with the State. Storm progress is mon- itored, and as it becomes a threat. de- cisions are made concerning implement- ation of preparedness activity in the county. As the date of storm arrival nears, additional personnel are brought into the group as necessary to ensure that appropriate actions are taken. FN2. See§ 286.011, Fla. Stat. (2004) (requiring notice and recorded minutes for meetings of public bodies). Although per- tinent to an understanding of the facts, Colby's motivation is not legally relevant. See Warden v. Bennett, 340 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (stating that the public records law "does not direct itself to the motivation of the person who seeks the re- cords"). 1-2N3. These comments were attributed to N ichols in a document Colby introduced at the hearing below over the County's objec- tion. Colby claimed that the document con- sisted of minutes from the 2005 hurricane preparedness workshop. But, in support of a motion for rehearing, the County filed an affidavit by Nichols stating that he had never seen any minutes from this group's meetings. Colby asked for documents related to the hurricane Executive Decision Group, making his request around 11:00 a.m. Colby was no stranger to the public records, and he made his request to the county's public information officer as he had hucn asked to do previously. In response, Colby received a faxed letter from Tom Portz, an assistant county administrator. Portz's letter set forth the County's understanding that Colby was requesting "copies of all meeting notices. minutes, and notes, including © 2008 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft- IITMLE &fn top &mt - Flo... 6/3/2008 976 So.2d 31 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 (Cite as: 976 So.2d 31) any sign -in sheets, from the executive decision group meetings, which took place in preparation for the 2004 hurricane season." (Emphasis supplied.) Portz explained that Colby's request would require extensive research to locate the responsive docu- ments. He further explained the County's policy of assessing a special service charge when responding to public records requests that required extensive research. Portz calculated that the charge would be $65.12 based on the cost of a designated employee's salary and benefits ($16.28 per hour) multiplied by the estimated time to complete the work (four hours). According to Portz's letter, Colby *34 was required to deposit this sum before the County would begin researching his request. Colby had two reactions upon reading the assistant county administrator's letter. First, he noted that Portz incorrectly stated that he was seeking copies of the records when, instead, he wanted to examine the documents before deciding what to copy.FN4 Second, Colby did not believe that the County was legally allowed to charge for permitting inspection of public records. Although it was around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m., Colby immediately went to the county government center to raise these objections. Portz had already left for the day, so Colby dealt with the public information officer, Sarah Beth Hopton. Colby paid the deposit but complained that the County lacked authority to assess the service charge. Hopton replied that he could sue her if he did not like it. This pretty much ended the conver- sation, and Colby never communicated to the County that he wanted to inspect the documents rather than receive copies.FNS FN4. Colby described this as his general modus operandi for public records re- quests. FNS. Again, this fact has little relevance because, as we will explain, the special service charge applies to requests for both inspection and copies. But this exchange exemplifies the parties' general inability to communicate with each other in an effect- Page 3 of 6 Page 3 ive or constructive way, an unfortunate state of affairs that has continued throughout this litigation. The next day Colby did just as the public informa- tion officer had suggested: he tiled a public records suit against the County, naming in addition Carl E. Cool, Sr. (the county administrator), Hopton, and Nichols. In his verified complaint, Colby alleged that he wanted only to examine the records. that the County failed to make the records available to hum, and that the County required him to prepay before locating the records. In his prayer for relief, Colby asked for an order to show cause, an immediate hearing, an order requiring the County to make the records available for inspection and enjoining the County from demanding payment for the inspection of records, the removal from office of the public re- cords custodian, and an award of his suit costs. That same day, Colby delivered a copy of the corn- plaint to the county attorney's office. At that time, the county attorney gave Colby copies of docu- ments that he said were responsive to Colby's re- quest. Colby accepted the documents. which werc 28 pages of handwritten notes; there were no form- al minutes, meeting notices, or sign -in sheets from the group's meetings. 'The county attorney also offered a partial refund because the research took only two hours and forty minutes, which was less than estimated.'"° Colby refused the refund. fi- nally, the county attorney told Colby that the Liles were available for his inspection at any time he wished. Colby, however, did not want to look through the boxes of files, and he has never availed himself of this opportunity, although he continues to complain that the County has failed to satisfy his public records request.'`' FN6. The County estimated four hours by Nichols' assistant. When she was not im- mediately available to do this work, Nich- ols himself performed it. Given his more direct familiarity with the files. he was able to complete the project in Tess than the projected time. Nichols' salary was higher © 2008 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = top &mt = Flo... 6/3/2008 976 So.2d 31 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 (Cite as: 976 So.2d 31) than his assistant's, but the County did not increase the service charge that had been quoted to Colby. FN7. Specifically, Colby wanted formal minutes, which Nichols allegedly said had been kept. In proceedings conducted after the circuit court's ruling, and in multiple motions and responses filed in this court after oral argument, Colby persists in his demand for the County to produce these seemingly nonexistent minutes. *35 As mandated by the public records law, the cir- cuit court held a hearing in short order. See§ 119.11, Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing accelerated hearing for action to enforce public records law). Portz and Colby offered the only testimony. In its final judgment, the circuit court ruled that the County was not allowed to include the cost of em- ployee benefits when calculating the labor cost for the special service charge. By implication, the court also ruled that the County was allowed to collect an estimate of the charge in advance. The County ap- peals the former ruling and Colby cross - appeals the latter. Colby also complains that the County failed to justify the necessity for research to locate the re- cords and to assess the special service charge when Colby wanted only to examine the records. [1] In Florida, access to public records is a matter of such importance that it is constitutionally guar- anteed. Art. 1, § 24(a), Fla. Const. Even before this constitutional provision was adopted in 1992, there were statutes providing access to public records. See State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So.2d 149, 152 (Fla.2003) (noting that first public records statute was enacted in 1909). At the same time, Florida has long required those who seek such records to defray the extraordinary costs associated with their re- quests. At issue today is the scope of the County's authority to charge a fee under Florida law permit- ting a records custodian to assess a "special service charge" when "the nature or volume of public re- cords requested to be inspected or copied ... is such as to require extensive use of information techno- Page 4 of 6 Page 4 logy resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both. "§ 119.07(4)(d). This charge is in addition to the cost of duplication, which may also he charged to the person requesting the copies. ; 119.07(1). The special service charge shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the per- sonnel providing the service that is actually in- curred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance re- quired, or both. § 119.07(4)(d). [2] The County has adopted a policy to the same ef- fect as the statute. While chapter 119 does not define "extensive" or "labor cost," the County's policy defines "extensive" as a public records re- quest that "will take more than 15 minutes to loc- ate, review for confidential information, copy and refile the requested material." 1" In such circum- stances, the County's policy provides that the charge "will be computed to the nearest quarter of an hour exceeding 15 minutes based on the current rate of pay for the paygrade of the person who per- formed the service[.]" The County has also adopted a fee schedule that calculates the labor cost by mul- tiplying the research time by the responding em- ployee's hourly wage and benefits. As mentioned, the circuit court held that it was improper to include the employee's benefits in the labor cost calcula- tion. FN8. The County derived this definition from Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. v. Florida Department of Corrections, 579 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (2 -1 decision approving administrative rule measuring extensive assistance based on fifteen minutes). Because Colby's request required substantially more than fifteen minutes to research, we find it unnecessary to comment on this portion of the County's © 2008 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=IITMI .E& fn top &mt -Flo... 6/:; /7008 976 So.2d 31 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 (Cite as: 976 So.2d 31) policy. The purpose of statutory construction is to give ef- fect to the legislature's intent. In attempting to dis- cern legislative intent, we must first look to the ac- tual language used in the statute. BellSouth Tele- cornms., *36 863 So.2d at 289. Notably, the statute at issue here employs the term "labor cost," the plain meaning of which is more inclusive than the words "wages" or "salary." That benefits may be a significant component of labor costs is widely un- derstood.FN9 Thus, as the County points out, in an- other context the legislature has defined the term "direct labor cost" to mean, in part, an amount not less than "the cost of one employee's salary and be- nefits."§ 526.303(4), Fla. Stat. (2004) (the Motor Fuel Marketing Practices Act). See Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125, 126 (Fla.1993) ( "The legis- lature is assumed to know the meaning of the words in the statute and to have expressed its intent by the use of those words. "). In contrast, the County has directed us to various other statutes, in chapters re- lating to unemployment or worker's compensation, for example, where the legislature has used the terms "wage" or "wages" instead of "labor cost." It has been observed that the use of such differing terms shows that the legislature "well knows how to express itself." Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So.2d 294, 298 -99 (FIa.2000) (contrasting language in PIP statute with that in worker's compensation and medical malpractice statutes to support conclusion that legislature intended different meaning when it used the more limited term in PIP statute). Clearly, then, the legislature did not intend that the labor cost component of the special service charge au- thorized in section 1 19.07(4)(d) was to be limited to actual wages. FN9. Employment benefits may account for as much as twenty to forty percent of labor costs. Eileen Silverstein & Peter Goselin, Intentionally Impermanent Em- ployment and the Paradox of Productivity, 26 Stetson L. Rev. 1, 9 (1996) (discussing change from full -time, permanent employ- Page 5 of 6 Page 5 ees to part -time and temporary workers and independent contractors). In Highlands County, benefits account for approxim- ately thirty percent of its labor cost. This conclusion is borne out by the statute's history. See City of Clearwater, 863 So.2d 149 (reviewing amendments to statute. in addition to plain lan- guage, to support interpretation). I- fistorically. a re- cords custodian has been allowed to assess specific charges. For example, when it was impossible or impracticable to photograph records in the place where they were kept, a person seeking to photo- graph records was required to cover the expense of providing a suitable place. § 119.03, Fla. Stat. (1941) (now located at section 119.07(3)(d), Flor- ida Statutes (2004)). The records custodian was also allowed to charge for the services of the cus- todian or a deputy who supervised the photograph- ing of public records "at a rate of compensation to be agreed upon by the person desiring to make the said photographs and the custodian ..., or in case the same fail to agree as to the said charge, then by the board of countycommissioners of said county. "§ 119.03, Fla. Stat. (1941). In 1975, the legislature amended the public records law to allow for the collection of fees when copies were requested. Ch. 75 -225. § 4. at 638. Laws of Fla. (amending section 119.07(1) to state that a re- cords custodian shall furnish copies "upon payment of fees as prescribed by law or, if fees are not pre- scribed by law, upon payment of the actual cost of duplication of the copies "). The legislature added a version of the provision at issue here in 1979, when it created section 119.07(4) to provide as follows: In the case of records produced under this act, when the nature or volume of records is such as to require extensive clerical or supervisory assist- ance by personnel of the agency involved, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a reasonable charge, approved by the Department of Administration, *37 for the provision of such clerical or supervisory person- nel. © 2008 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv . Split &prtt= H"hMLE &fn= top &mt - -1" Io... 6 %3/2008 976 So.2d 31 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 (Cite as: 976 So.2d 31) Ch. 79 -187, § 4, at 726, Laws of Fla. Later, the le- gislature eliminated the Department of Administra- tion's role in setting these charges and instead dir- ected that the charge "shall be based on the actual salary rate of such personnel providing the service." Ch. 81 -245, § 1, at 989, Laws of Fla. In 1984, this language was replaced in part with language that continues in substance to this day, permitting the agency to collect "a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the labor costs actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assist- ance required of such personnel providing the ser- vice." Ch. 84 -298, § 5, at 1401, Laws of Fla. (emphasis and stricken language omitted). The statute's evolution - authorizing charges that were agreed upon or set by a county commission, then set by the Department of Administration, then based on salary rate, and currently based on labor cost - supports our conclusion that the legislature in- tended more than salary by its use of the term "labor cost." See State v. Parks, 866 So.2d 172, 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (stating presumption that legis- lature intends statute to have different meaning when it amends language of statute). Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's interpreta- tion of section 119.07(4)(d), and we approve the County's formula that includes both an employee's salary and his or her benefits when calculating the labor cost to be included in the special service charge authorized by that statute. [3] With a brief discussion, we affirm the issues raised by Colby on cross - appeal. First, the County presented sufficient testimony at the show cause hearing to substantiate the basis for the charge. Second, the special service charge applies to re- quests for both inspection and copies of public re- cords when extensive clerical assistance is required. See 119.07(4)(d) ( "If the nature of volume of public records requested to he inspected or copied...) (emphasis supplied). And third, the County may collect a deposit before beginning the research, as long as it is reasonable and based on the labor cost Page 6 of 6 Page 6 that is actually incurred by or attributable to the County. On this last point, the County's policy of requiring an advance deposit seems prudent given the legis- lature's determination that taxpayers should not shoulder the entire expense of responding to an ex- tensive request for public records. And we note that the facts in this case do not suggest an abuse by the County. Even though the County performed the re- search task faster than anticipated, it explained the difference based on the director's personal familiar - ity' with the records. I urthernute, the County made no attempt to increase the charge based on his high- er compensation. Given the statutory requirement that the charge be reasonable and based on actual costs, we are confident that any abuse in future cases can be redressed through the courts. See, e.g., Carden v. Chief of Police, City of Clewiston Police Dep't, 696 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing and remanding for police chief to explain in detail special service charge of $4000 for public records request in I1:411l charge be reasonable). Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur. Fla.App. 2 Dist.2008. Board of County Com'rs of Highlands County v. Colby 976 So.2d 31, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D342 END OF DOCUMENT © 2008 Thomson /West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http: / /web2.westlaw.com/ print /printstream.aspx ?sv= Split &prft = HTMLE &fn = top &mt= Flo... 6/3/200g PUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING June 6, 2008 REGULAR AGENDA SUMMARY 9. Board Member Items A. Establish Board Meeting Dates for 2009 March 13, 2009 June 5, 2009 August 14, 2009 November 13, 2009 i Locations to be determined. Public Comment: State full name and address. Discussion must be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes per person. Adjournment CALENDAR FOR 2009 JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE 6 S. m T w 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 9 7 s m r 1 2 3 4 s m r w r 1 2 s NI 1 7 2 WT 3 4 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 2 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER .s m T s m r WT FS s TWT FS m 1 2 3 4 5 s m r w 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 7 s m 1 2 3 4 5 . 5 6 1 2 7 8 9 3 10 4 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 0 15 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 . 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26 19 20 21 22 23 •24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 so 3. 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 r ' 1 L/ r .7—, ./'-' - , ( .. `‘, /L/ ) ) ,„,l& L, /ci--_,4„, Lt., ; -',.,p / ,-,-16, -7 ____f_— I -- /A.,,,/,.:;,..,,t z."-. Ei,../ •---1" ---t-7-9--c.'-•-•-''''''''' , . ,---- i ' -'i 7) A 7Th ,--, ' (. , / / / 1 .----1"----- - / 11/ 1 LL -\ ('-(-.7 .;../.-/ / ? ,:.; 1.- .'. tki -.1-7 - ^ / ' , IL.," 4,41_7 LA-I-LAI L4-n, - j • r , . ,1 I • ki.1.4, (L4,. „t/ r.e.":: rt,./ • „ C t - / j - „ , 6„.„, tz, ' A , ',.„) A." C.:,i / - i - , ,'S I 1 Li , • -7, ■ / \\4--6-"J 4./ • / I , 2t;,L L47 1:2J Cc ctL , / , 7 7- 7- ( C - I JJH ;27 / ) / / ( ;:-L,/,./ c , 7 / ---- _..• ,-, , ,// - if ,-..-,-<...-', .5" 129-7„(1/ "71-4,1 6-1 , r 4 2./5 / 76) - 5 f ' //V YCI-1,.L-L 2 / r 41 L' /7. A 1,t,1 11 J 375 Ti 3C) 3 lZ; 7 it (.-27 • C.)47294 4 /6 ( 4/)/ '‘A 7 7 ' 7 ‘7 i )-)„t;4---- AJIL tivQ, kiL / „.rt p, Coz - 2D- L. 7-) -757 / („; )-\ 71 , 77;tj' 1.1 7Lt24 172- ( 4 Li I 4 Z/t.'"■ i4 / y (1.;f‘ / 7 NJ' -1/ L" L.; ,6‘j 2- ' "t---, / --(A. al i 7\," Y,--- , C LCx—; ---2-c-_,-1.--.,„--?---) , 7\--/ ; 77)1>i, Pl..t.„-Lt,t--( `I-C) --)--1„/(„/ :t-t-A- ' 4.--- I/ / r -/6; 1 ,, i _, / --f---- / I-- , ,....../'-',---' ,, j r t / i' ,y,......./9 r).4 ,,,, ,i,.,' •''C ,2"--2-1 , ! s•-• liti t, rfl r711 if/ ,-; L./■:.:' I (-- I ---\ .4 / '... T j ,^. - L,- jJy f ,.... / r • 7 / :/ _ 1/_, ' n . ) i, --<.-, ';'•,,-,Z-,/ t---,:_k-i,..„44,, A, \ /-1 7.) .-F 6 /1-'-',,L7c) I /-1' i I-.- /0-/- i , 1 _ ; LA.-, / / L.:4 • *I) / • f 67▪ ' cL LJ f //,‘...C. 27, J /21 -"1 /^1-- . , 7:2 t' `n_jOk-cc • 11C,(„, / i , 14) - / 1 ^ // JJ 4,;\ \ 1 i ) , , 7 7-4 , --',. ) c , , ) 7C , _7)1," \ • , t;-7 cc6c -3) 4 1 r1,-)/iLLet -2 1 M- ,4 • LA- 4 / / ri /'-i'---)-0: 0\--c-i--- - -- --)7) ,,, . ?' 7? 2 /7 1, , • 2? - CI e • a_ 21 L. • Wt‘-,J. 4-) "±" (.) ? ry /C21-p k-cs) / -1-c, ,L/4.4 61-1 ( 6e( rc 62_ - -C±e4-7tif ) CA-41" rd -;fr—j(ic,•"■)(..' a/ /Jis , 1/7 - c- cL / /: ) It ) / 72—\..s20,2 -41 • ' ■." / / 10/ (tr., 921797-1 (-) LJ LA-2,21./ ci / r FL- ) 10_ Lj-32 j_ 4 tRi -771Lt-4 - / C C-0-1 ‘ /, etd r c z --- t, f c,..-z..,,',1. C 7 / I •- kri,- iv I 1 ,, ■1 7 \ ., i I i V ,-A>Yal ') r .A..L V 1_,■2,1,-.4.. ;LA .., i CYTh rt_ L, 71' - -7- C'IV) L — I e V /1 \Li 71 `.% ccj ; 'tiS1-.72^1,0b ( A l'A627 • ( / yi?H ('Ck -fif--24H1Jgtik''Cl&T,1 cLu.Le C' ) 1(1-4 [7) 7-Nt / ‘:22. ) I ,77,c 2 At. 7 ; L(4417(v) ' f , - 1 ;12.ci -7) , ) / ,-1 -- :=1-1.-- (I ■,' c -1 , (-_,,, , C,/ 2=1 (.: /,./A/ h' , 1 , „, , 7 L',/' (-:71 (-) j, ,,•''? , 7 , ,,/ 6 .1"'t21,4(_,4 - ' j''ei \ '':-.2'7-■;', ii-`■:': i ,... 4, ( i r-,' ,. - -.4-e"--„,---, .1----_2:-•.:;-:‘,.:•,,,,4 - _.,' L„6, 7,„ .c.,,, ,,,,/ 1 ...„. _ ,-.6 'L.:L.,- .,,,,,.. V 1- ,... 4 .. 44 , - t -0",-- I 1;' t a (4""714:: ' ' '-1, '----- ' I Ct, i. a c_ s-C-f-,'47__ 7 / ,./ / , / // , , i 1 / , , / 1 -,Ii-,---, (....1: ,f;----f 2,--. .._;,! '11N.,)," ,',,,;-/ .......j ' -/,---L': -t--* /-1 ' zi< (1 /4- r;;,/, 7-7):2,1 -' (— u,5.t c,-;;,,,„--t!i (-1 _,._ --,,,,, , il ,-, / ( /7 I C / .7) -,y( CAL "C/:-.7,`? ) 1 VL 1 --/e"-7-7, 1/ 7 - ((()1*. / ; 4 /// C 1 S v 7 FL} c , L/L--/-7 / T ) L,J • / r 7 v,7 Ok / :).217, / ( , , • L-?\ (1,s, r ( , , ti : . ) tJu:JA (A) --t--7,t,„ A ,„ A , , I ; ( 7 41-7 1 /Th Ll --y-NY /Li( ( t> • / „.„„, L, >Th ( ■•• 7 — f , -.1 n ) \ , . t ) I, 7-,,Y Gy", k E- 7/.,, ' l ')i , ,) ■-,,Yi" '`,,.' ()j 'J I 1 ' , ".1C, '141\ 13() , k ,\CIL 6:\e„ 74.1:1) ,..7: , / 7, , ,..) 1)) 1/2 vv...A...;-1 f;- ' r- IJ , r y5 11 -44 r- 47V.Lit/ //' 3(0 (.7 c/ Lk; ( L, IL L/ i; /rf 2 ci v 5 9( /6? / /-) 363 -; '7c)/ / 0 .-1/C. / , ' fl 3 ,") , . 5 Ci 4 ) - r ,cr (,• r ) / 3-7) F., 9 ci_ [ • ' 4. 7 / 6 , c C At„ / ?"-/---7