STATE COMMITTEE OF VENDORS MEETING

ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL: FEBRUARY 6 - 7, 2004

Mr. Sampadian called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. on Friday, February 6th.

Ms. Alger called the roll.

Mr. Bluschke moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Ms. Smart seconded the motion and it was passed by voice vote.

Mr. Newcomb suggested that he and Ms. Alger collaborate on preparing the minutes in order to avoid having two sets. The Committee agreed.

Mr. Newcomb requested that the Committee approve a third back-up Alternate to the Selection Panel and the Committee agreed. Ms. Alger nominated Debby Malmberg. Mr. Thompson seconded the nomination. No additional nominations were presented and Ms. Malmberg was confirmed by unanimous voice vote.

Ms. Murphey presented a comprehensive report on the Agencys initiative to support the vendors desire to achieve uniform pricing from Coke and Pepsi throughout the State. She will act as a facilitator and resource in overcoming the Statewide lack of communication between vendors, purveyors and the Agency.

Meetings have been held with Coke and although we have never had an agreement with Pepsi, Ms. Murphey stated that she believes the door is open.

To ensure that vendors are actively involved in the process, a new subcommittee has been formed. Its title is Power Purchasing and its prime directive is NO VENDOR LEFT BEHIND!

The Power Purchasing subcommittees members are:

The subcommittee held an organizational teleconference on January 17th and established a temporary goal of negotiating an agreement with Coke to make its uniform pricing in Jacksonville available to all vendors. That pricing agreement is currently only available to vendors using Coke exclusively, and Ms. Murphey has made it clear to Coke that decision is each vendors to make. It is hoped that Coke will see the benefit of increased sales through lowering its pricing to all vendors.

Ms. Murphey informed the Committee that for the first eleven months of 2003 our total drink sales were 7.7 million dollars. The breakdown between Coke and Pepsi is not available.

Mr. Sampadian stated that he believes most operators would be unwilling to go exclusive with either Coke or Pepsi. Other Committee members voiced general agreement and Ms. Murphey said that this is the kind of information that is needed for future negotiations.

The subcommittee has created a survey to develop the kinds of information needed to allow us to negotiate from a position of strength with both Coke and Pepsi. All District Reps are asked to distribute the survey and provide any assistance needed by vendors in their District to complete it. A print copy is attached, but it is available in all formats from the Agency.

Mr. Rigney asked how machines with both cans and bottles should be recorded on the survey. Ms. Murphey replied that these should be counted as bottle machines.

Completed surveys are to be returned to the subcommittee no later than March 15th. Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 are asked to return their surveys to Leo Thompson. Surveys from Districts 6, 7, 8 and 9 go to Gene Harper. Districts 10, 11, 12 and 13 will send their surveys to Larry Batterton.

Mr. Rigney asked if this pricing initiative would include food products such as Lays, etc. Ms. Murphey responded that because of the increasing prices for beverage products the first step would be in that area.

The next item was an update on Aramatic Refreshment Services, Inc. This New York based food service management company is now under contract with the Agency to provide management services to vacant facilities. Aramatic replaces the entity known as FIRE and its fee is $10,000/month. This represents a savings of at least $180,000 annually.

Ms. Murphey introduced Mr. Rob Stephen, Vice President of Food Services, and Mr. Mark Healey, Vice President of Corporate Development.

The company is currently operating two BEP facilities, the cafeterias in the Tallahassee FDLE building and the Brooksville SWFTMMD building. Both facilities are showing improved sales and customer satisfaction.

Mr. Stephen and Mr. Healey described their companys mission in terms of strategic partnership with the Agency. They will provide management, staff, menus, marketing and all related services to existing locations that do not have a DBS manager. They will do the same in locations where we do not yet have a contract, with the intent of securing our future presence in that venue. They will also work with the Agency to evaluate facilities under LOFA, with emphasis on long-term viability and improvement in profitability.

Aramatic was founded in 1995 and has worked with the New York BEP program for several years. In the NY program they offered new licensees the opportunity to do post-training in a BEP facility in order to better their chances for a successful career. They hope to do this in Florida as well. In response to a question from Mr. Rigney they said they would take new licensees as employees in order to provide further training. Mr. Thompson asked what they are doing to learn about the Florida BEP and their response was that is what they are doing now, both in the two cafeterias and discussions with Agency staff. They said they are always learning from those in the program with good experience.

Ms. Murphey then reported that after Aramatic began providing management services at the SWFTMDD cafeteria in Brooksville, not only did sales begin to improve steadily but also the Agency was able to secure a contract with SWFTMDD for the vending, with a percentage of about 7% to the host.

Mr. Angelicola suggested that the training subcommittee and the Agency might want to work with Aramatic to develop ways to include them in our OJT program. He then offered the idea that we might consider designating a permanent training facility and use Aramatic for all OJT. Mr. Stephen and Mr. Healey expressed interest in this idea and reported that they had done this with the NY BEP.

Ms. Murphey reported next that we have a signed contract in effect with VISINITY to manage unassigned vending. This company will monitor and track commissions, locate new venues and eventually create a database.. They will receive commissions only from new locations on which they secure a contract.

Ms. Murphey then presented a list of several proposed facility combinations.

Tallahassee - #545 and #542. The addition of the vending machines comprising #542 to the Twin towers Snack Bar (#545) will increase the net profit by about $6000 annually.

Mr. Thompson made a motion to combine #542 and #545. Ms. Alger seconded the motion.

Mr. Rigney asked what guidelines are used to make decisions to combine facilities. Mr. Sampadian explained that it is done on a case-by-case basis because each facility is different. Depending on the factors involved, each is decided on its own merits.

Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 voted yes.

District 8 voted no.

The motion passed.

Tallahassee - #274, the cafeteria in the Carlton Building with #543, the vending in the Bryant Building across the street. These machines generate about $1200 in monthly sales and are not a feasible stand-alone location.

Mr. Thompson made the motion to combine #274 and #543. Mr. Brinton seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

Tallahassee - #533, a vending operation in the FCI with #544, a new vending operation of 7 machines in the DOA building.

Mr. Thompson made the motion to combine #533 and #544. Mr. Harper seconded the motion.

Mr. Thompson explained that downtown Tallahassee has one very successful vending route, but that the area will not support a second one. For that reason it is considered advisable to use small new operations to enhance the viability of struggling facilities.

Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 voted yes.

District 8 voted no.

The motion passed.

#526, the Madison City Rest Area and #538, two machines 15 miles away with nothing else nearby.

Mr. Thompson made the motion to combine #526 and #538

The motion received a second.

The motion passed unanimously.

Pinellas County - #373, a small vending operation in the Sheriffs Administration Building and #374, 7 machines in the State Regional Service Center, both in Largo. They are about > mile apart.

Ms. Alger made the motion to combine #373 and #374.

Mr. Francis seconded the motion.

Ms. Murphey read the sales report for the last 12 months for these locations individually and then the combined total. Neither location has sufficient sales to meet current standards of viability.

Mr. Rigney stated that he believed #374 should be attached to #500, the Pinellas Postal Route because the current operator of #373 has had several opportunities to apply for a more profitable location. Mr. Sampadian explained that these decisions are made on a facility basis, not on a personal one.

Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 voted yes.

District 8 voted no.

The motion passed.

Hillsborough County - #267, a vending route and #552,a small satellite location in the DCF building.

Mr. Rigney reported that he did not know of this proposal.

Ms. Murphey moved on to two locations in District 12, about which Ms. Smart knew nothing.

At Ms. Murpheys request, these three proposed combinations were tabled to the May meeting.

District 12 - #501 and #493, vending locations in Broward County.

Ms. Alger reminded the Committee that this combination was voted on and approved last year pending approval from DMS to make the conversion to full vending in #493, a State Regional Service Center, a permanent change.

Ms. Alger made the motion to reaffirm the original vote.

Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Sampadian asked for a report from the Training work Group.

Mr. Francis pointed out the need for current equipment to be used and taught at the Rehab Center.

Mr. Sampadian then introduced Mr. Steve Moss, BEP Training Director, who gave a summary of the current training program.

The new training protocol has been in effect for a little over a year. New recruits number 21, of which nine are now licensed and ten are in OJT or missing. Of the nine new licensees, six are under LOFA. Two recruits dropped out. One previously licensed individual has returned for retraining.

Some vendors have asked what they should be teaching their OJT students. Mr. Elliott responded that an OJT curriculum exists and he wants to know who is teaching without it.

Mr. Moss said he needs more time to teach everything he thinks is needed. Mr. Rigney asked how much more time is needed, and Mr. Moss stated that a two-week module for computer training should be added. The BEP classroom has six computers available at ll times, but there arent enough instructors.

Mr. Elliott said that Client Services is encouraged to provide computer training to prospects before they enter BEP training.

Mr. Moss then cited the need for long-term follow-up for new licensees, tracking their progress one, two and three years out. He also wants to get input from new licensees on a regular basis in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of the training program.

Mr. Sampadian requested that the Training work Group be included in discussions between the Agency and Mr. Moss.

Mr. Elliott and Mr. Newcomb agreed that this is a good idea.

Mr. Elliott mentioned the Hadley School for the Blind, which offers free home-based courses in business law, business math and much more. He asked Mr. Moss to identify the computer skills needed before a person enters BEP training. He also said that current vendors can use local resources and that he will help locate these upon request.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.

Mr. Sampadian reconvened the meeting at 8:30 A.M. on Saturday, February 7, 2004.

Ms. Alger called the roll.

Ms. Murphey presented a brief budget summary report, a copy of which is attached.

The Manasota Post office may go back into the budget. Negotiations are in progress.

Mr. Sampadian made some revisions to Committee work group assignments. A copy is attached.

The Policy work group presented a clarification to the repair policy contained in the Program handbook. A copy is attached. Mr. Elliott and Ms. Murphey agreed to work with the Consultants to ensure that non-repair items are not billed as repairs. The funds all come from the same pot, but all agree that it is important to be able to track and monitor actual repairs. Several instances of Consultants advising vendors to put equipment purchases through as reimbursable repairs were cited. The Committee views this as an abuse of the system.

There was a discussion of the 60-day limit for filing repair reimbursement requests. Pending a ruling from legal staff, the issue was tabled to the May meeting.

The Policy work group presented an initiative that would make a new licensees first LOFA a Type II (temporary) for a period of six months to one year, with intensive support and continuing training provided during that time. Mr. Newcomb expressed misgivings about this ideas compliance with program rules. No action was taken.

Mr. Elliott informed the Committee that he has directed the Consultants to spend the entire first week of every first-time LOFA holder in the facility. They are to provide hands-on pro-active support "from sunup to sundown." They will make twice-weekly visits for the next six weeks.

Ms. Alger reported that the Grievance board has heard two grievances, both resulting from LOFA terminations, since last fall.

Mr. Newcomb reported on the status of 120 administrative reviews filed by Mr. Mark Thomas and Mr. Rob Anderson, both of which arose from LOFA termination. Both have been postponed until March. Mr. Ed Sanders has withdrawn a request for an administrative review arising from a Selection grievance heard last year.

Mr. Newcomb reported that in the last year there have been more grievances resulting from LOFA termination than from the selection process.

Mr. Rigney reported that he has opened a web site to provide an open forum to vendors. He will provide the link by email.

Mr. Harper made a motion to recommend to the Selection Panel that they discontinue using letters of commendation from customers in their evaluations of facility applicants.

Mr. Francis seconded the motion.

Discussion followed, revealing that many committee members believe such documents are frequently solicited. Ms. Alger pointed out that 100 letters count no more than two. Other members expressed concern that such documents could easily be falsified, or generated by the applicant.

The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

The Committee recommends to the Selection panel that the math question be administered in private in order to lessen the applicants nervousness.

Mr. Rigney recommended that the Selection panel consider developing a system of seniority points.

Mr. Thompson requested more lead-time for interview notification. Mr. Newcomb described the steps necessary to set the interviews and said he will do what he can.

Ms. Smart suggested that BEP consider setting up car wash operations at State and Federal locations. Ms. Alger stated that this would not fall under the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Mr. Sampadian responded that anyone who has a legitimate business idea should bring a proposal to Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Elliott explained that any client may present a small business proposal to Client Services, an assessment of its viability will be prepared, and if the proposal meets the required criteria Client Services may fund the project.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Gyorke Alger, Committee Secretary

Gene Newcomb, Compliance Director

REPAIR POLICY CLARIFICATION

The BEP Program and Policy Handbook contains a clear statement of the policy with regard to repairs. The Committee asks the Agency to scrutinize repair invoices to ensure that they are in compliance with stated policy. The Committee further requests that all Consultants be directed to inform vendors in their Regions that the repair policy will be enforced.

From: Murphey, Kathy
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 5:27 PM
To: Bluschke, Philip; Angelicola, Daniel; Brinton, Darryl BBE
Cc: Elliott, Michael
Subject: Meeting Minutes

Just to update everyone.

Dan was out of town, and Darryl was in a coffee machine (just kidding) so Phil and I met to review the financial status for the first six months. Notes from the meeting are as follows. Phil, you can use this for your report.

Our total projected budget for state fiscal year 03-04 is $2,573,580.18. We have expended $1,450,745.54 for the first half of this fiscal year.

The remaining balance of $1,122,834.00 correlates closely with the projects and facility expenses projected for the second half.

Set Aside income was projected at $450,000. So far $229,830. was collected for the first half.  So far we're right on tract.

The Unassigned income has dropped significantly. $291,000 of unassigned income was projected however so far only 78,464.00 was collected for the first half. At this rate there will be a short fall of $134,072.

Some of the contributing factors are;

Overall reduction in consumer activity

DBS is down to 160 out of  what was once 351 full service Coke locations

Lance is pulling machines from 21 locations this month (January).

Coke sales for manned locations only rose 1% from last year.

Created job opportunities at Miami FCI and Federal Detention Center in Miami

To over come these factors the Agency has contracted with Visinity to seek out other State and Federal locations, create a detailed machine location database and tract income on all locations.

It has taken longer than expected to complete the DOE process.  As of today two signatures are still needed, the Chief Financial Officer and Commissioner.

To: All DBS Licensed Contract Operators

Subject: Wholesale Drink Costs

Greetings and well wishes to all:

A Power Purchasing sub-committee was formed to coordinate statewide efforts to purchase collectively for the benefit of our external and internal customers. External customers being the general public and internal customers being each of you, the DBS Licensed Facility Operator. The purchasing sub-committee members appointed by the Committee are Leo Thompson, Gene Harper, and Don Weitzel.

The most diverse and rapidly increasing wholesale cost structure was identified in the beverage product line. As such this became the primary endeavor. First and foremost, we want to hear from you. Your input is critical to identifying where we are, where we want to go and developing a plan to get there. Your ideas and input are welcome and needed. Please complete the enclosed survey noting any additional comments on the back and return to your District Representative by ______________________.

The survey is available in all formats upon request.

Please remember any proposal offered to any operator as a result of this initiative is optional and at no time will there be forced participation.

Best regards,

District _______

Facility________

 Coke 12 oz cans Coke 20 oz bottles Coke power ade Coke 20 oz water Pepsi 12 oz cans Pepsi 20 oz bottles Pepsi gator ade Pepsi 20 oz water
No of Machines                
Cases purchased per month                
Cost per case                
Retail price                

What 4 customer service improvements would you want from your current supplier

  1. ________________________________________________________________________
  2. ________________________________________________________________________
  3. ________________________________________________________________________
  4. ________________________________________________________________________

Policy Development

Training

Audit Budget Finance

Transfer and Promotion

Selection Panel Revised 2 - 7 - 04

Grievance Board

Return to top of page

DISCLAIMER: Links on the Florida Division of Blind Services (DBS) website that are directed toward websites outside the DBS, provide additional information that may be useful or interesting and are being provided consistent with the intended purpose of the DBS website. DBS cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by non-DBS websites. Further, providing links to a non-DBS website does not constitute an endorsement by DBS, the Florida Department of Education or any of its employees, of the sponsors of the non-DBS website or of the information or products presented on the non-DBS website.