Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the BioLineRx second quarter 2022 results conference call. All participants are presently in listen-only mode. Following management's formal presentation, instructions will be given for the question and answer session. For operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero. I would now like to turn over the call to Tim McCarthy of LifeSci Advisors. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Before turning the call over to management, I would like to make the following remarks concerning forward-looking statements. All statements in this conference call other than historical facts are indeed forward-looking statements. The words anticipate, believe, estimate, expect, intend, guidance, confidence, target, project, and other similar expressions are used typically to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and may involve and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and other factors that may affect BioLineRx's business, financial condition and other operating results. These include, but are not limited to the risk factors and other qualifications contained in BioLineRx's annual report on Form 20-F, quarterly reports filed on Form 6-K and other reports filed by BioLineRx with the SEC to which your attention is directed.
Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. BioLineRx expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements. At this time, it is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Mr. Philip Serlin, Chief Executive Officer of BioLineRx.
Thank you, Tim, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us on our second quarter results conference call today. Earlier this morning, we issued a press release, a copy of which is available in the investor relations section of our website. It was also filed as a 6-K. I will begin with an overview of our second quarter, then Mali Zeevi, our Chief Financial Officer, will provide a discussion of our financial results. We will then open up the call and are looking forward to your questions. Also joining the call for Q&A are Abi Vainstein-Haras, our Chief Medical Officer, Ella Sorani, our Chief Development Officer, and Holly May, our Chief Commercial Officer. During the second quarter and subsequent period, we made significant progress across both our stem cell mobilization and pancreatic cancer programs for our lead compound, motixafortide.
At the same time, we are approaching a key data readout for our second program, the anti-cancer vaccine AGI-134, which I will discuss shortly. Turning to our most advanced opportunity, stem cell mobilization. In stem cell mobilization, we are nearing completion of our new drug application and anticipate submitting the package to the FDA within the next four to six weeks. Recall that we held a successful pre-NDA meeting with the agency this past December and gained alignment on key aspects of the filing, most notably that a single phase III study, GENESIS, would be sufficient to support a submission. As a brief reminder, our GENESIS phase III trial of motixafortide in stem cell mobilization met all primary and secondary endpoints with a very high degree of statistical significance, a P value of less than 0.0001.
Approximately 90% of patients underwent transplantation after mobilizing the target number of stem cells following only one administration of motixafortide on top of GCSF and in only one apheresis session, versus approximately 11% in the GCSF arm. In addition, patients in the motixafortide plus GCSF arm collected an average of 11 million cells per kilogram in only one apheresis session versus approximately 2 million in the GCSF arm. We believe the clear clinical advantage to patients of a significantly reduced number of apheresis sessions is quite compelling. While the high level of certainty regarding the number of apheresis sessions will enable more efficient utilization of apheresis units at transplantation institutions, where there is often a shortage of available machines. In contrast, the use of GCSF alone, one of the main current treatments for mobilization, generally requires multiple apheresis days to reach the target number of cells for collection.
In a substantial number of instances, there are still patients who remain unable to produce the target number of cells for autologous transplantation. Not only does this add significantly to the cost of treatment, but it becomes logistically challenging to hospital apheresis units that, as just pointed out, are already quite burdened. Similarly, even with the addition of plerixafor to GCSF, which is the other main treatment in this indication, multiple administrations and apheresis sessions are generally required to achieve the target number of stem cells. Given that we have shown that motixafortide on top of GCSF can achieve the target mobilization with a single administration of motixafortide and in a single apheresis session, the advantages of this combination over the existing treatment protocols are abundantly clear.
In this regard, recall that we commissioned two pharmacoeconomic studies in the U.S. over the last year, one comparing motixafortide against G-CSF and the second comparing motixafortide against plerixafor. Both of these studies were performed by the Global Health Economics and Outcomes research team of IQVIA and were rigorously designed and executed. Both studies identified significant cost savings from using motixafortide, driven by its ability to optimize the mobilization and collection of stem cells and therefore reduce the number of apheresis sessions, in turn, driving benefits to the patients, the centers and the payers. Against G-CSF alone, motixafortide plus G-CSF was associated with a statistically significant decrease in healthcare resource utilization during the autologous stem cell transplantation process, with lifetime estimates showing a net cost savings of approximately $19,000, not including the cost of motixafortide against G-CSF alone.
Against plerixafor in combination with G-CSF, IQVIA did a cross-study comparison, and these results even surpassed the economic benefits seen in the pharmacoeconomic study versus G-CSF alone, with lifetime estimates showing a net cost savings of approximately $30,000, not including the cost of motixafortide for motixafortide plus G-CSF versus plerixafor plus G-CSF. I'd also like to take a moment to mention the extensive analyses that we have done to understand the addressable market for motixafortide in stem cell mobilization, including a market assessment that we commissioned through a well-respected third-party vendor, ZS Associates. The conclusion is that in 2021, the value of the U.S. stem cell mobilization market was estimated at approximately $360 million and is continuing to grow. Globally, we believe the addressable market exceeds $500 million.
With the advancement of new induction treatment regimens for multiple myeloma patients, which generally include multiple therapeutic compounds within the combination, the subsequent risk of mobilization failure continues to increase. To date, higher intensity, three or four drug regimens have become the standard of care induction treatment for all autologous stem cell transplant-eligible patients. Recent data have demonstrated that use of such higher intensity induction treatments can lead to impairment of stem cell mobilization. In addition, age is a predictor of stem cell mobilization response, and elderly patients with a decreased ability to mobilize the target number of stem cells are being treated more frequently than in the past.
Based on the above need for better mobilization agents, growth in this market over the last few years has been driven by the increased upfront use of the plerixafor plus G-CSF combination therapy to drive stem cell mobilization, especially in multiple myeloma patients. The plerixafor unit and dollar volume performance in the U.S. over the past few years indicates increased use of the product in stem cell transplants. As mentioned, this dynamic has been exacerbated in recent years by the introduction of more effective and aggressive induction therapies, which on the one hand have had higher initial response and remission rates, but on the other hand have negatively impacted stem cell yields, even with plerixafor, which on average requires more than two administrations and two apheresis sessions in order to reach the target mobilization.
This trend highlights the ever-increasing need for a better and more potent mobilizer, and we believe that is motixafortide. Considering the totality of the data that we have compiled on motixafortide and stem cell mobilization, both clinical and pharmacoeconomic, we are confident that a very strong case can be made for motixafortide as part of a new treatment paradigm in stem cell mobilization for all multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. In addition, longer term, we believe that our product has the potential to expand beyond multiple myeloma to other indications. Now, I'd like to speak briefly about our pre-launch activities. In parallel to the NDA submission activities, we continue to evaluate all of our options with regard to the commercialization of motixafortide in the U.S.
In this regard, we are advancing a broad range of pre-launch activities that would be required under any commercialization scenario, whether we commercialize with a partner or independently. As part of our commercial preparedness, in June, we announced the appointment of commercial strategy and operations veteran Holly May as our new Chief Commercial Officer. In this newly created position, which is based in the U.S., Holly is responsible for the commercial planning, positioning, and launch oversight for motixafortide in the stem cell mobilization indication across the U.S. market, assuming U.S. approval. We believe Holly is the perfect fit for this role. Her career trajectory has included 13 commercial launches, and she brings specific expertise in the hematopoietic stem cell mobilization area from her recent work in gene therapy.
In addition, we have carried out a number of pre-launch activities with long lead times, such as engaging key vendors with expertise in the pricing and market access areas, initiating medical affairs activities, for example, institution profiling, medical materials, outreach to key stakeholders, drafting brand logo and artwork, and finally, engaging commercial packaging organization, serialization, and third-party logistics partners. We have indicated before that the stem cell mobilization market is highly concentrated. Approximately 80 centers perform approximately 80% of stem cell procedures. Therefore, the commercialization expenses and footprint required would be limited relative to a more traditional oncology launch in a broader indication. In addition, Holly's preexisting relationships with the majority of these centers will serve us well.
Regardless of the manner in which we commercialize motixafortide in the U.S., our efforts now will ensure that we are prepared for a robust launch next year that maximizes the value of the asset and ensures that motixafortide is well-positioned to capture a significant share of the estimated $360 million annual market opportunity in the U.S. In addition, as mentioned, our longer-term plans involve expanding motixafortide beyond multiple myeloma into additional indications. Turning now to our motixafortide pancreatic cancer or PDAC program. In June, we took a significant step forward with this program by entering into a development collaboration agreement with GenFleet Therapeutics. Under the terms of this agreement, GenFleet will execute a rigorously designed, randomized p hase II-B clinical study in approximately 200 first-line metastatic PDAC patients in China. Importantly, we maintained full rights to motixafortide across all indications and geographies.
While GenFleet would be entitled to a small single-digit sales royalty should motixafortide ultimately be approved. This collaboration is based on the positive results that we reported from our phase II-A COMBAT/KEYNOTE-202 triple combination study of motixafortide in combination with Merck's anti-PD-1 Keytruda and chemotherapy as a second-line therapy. As a reminder, data from the phase II-A study demonstrated a substantial improvement across all study endpoints as compared to historical data, including median overall survival, median progression-free survival, confirmed overall response rate, overall response rate, and disease control rate. Based on their development and capabilities in China, including experience in conducting combination trials in the immuno-oncology space, we believe that we have found the ideal partner to advance motixafortide in pancreatic cancer, and we look forward to initiation of this trial in 2023.
Regarding our second clinical candidate, the intratumoral anticancer vaccine, AGI-134. Recall that we are evaluating safety, tolerability, and proof of mechanism in multiple solid tumor types in the phase I/II-A study. The study is designed to evaluate a wide array of biomarkers and assess both clinical and pharmacodynamic parameters. We hypothesize that AGI-134 coats tumor cells with alpha-Gal to make them look like foreign tissue in order to evoke an immune response that both destroys existing tumors and provides a vaccine-like effect. We hope to successfully demonstrate this mechanism of action when we read out top-line results from part 2 of the study. We are on track to do so later this year. If positive, we plan to initiate a phase II study in 2023.
I would now like to turn the call over to Mali Zeevi, our CFO, who will give a brief overview of our key second quarter financial statement items. Mali, please go ahead.
Thank you, Phil. As is our practice, in our financial discussion, we will only go over a few significant items on this call, research and development expenses and cash. Therefore, let me invite you to review the filings we made this morning, which contain our financials, operating and financial review, and press release for additional information. Research and development expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2022 were $5.4 million, an increase of $0.3 million or 5% compared to $5.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2021. The increase resulted primarily from an increase in expenses associated with the AGI-134 study, offset by lower expenses associated with the completed motixafortide GENESIS trial, as well as lower expenses related to NDA supporting activities related to motixafortide.
Research and development expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2022 were $9.8 million, an increase of $0.4 million or 4.4% compared to $9.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2021. The reason for the increase is similar to the aforementioned increase in the three-month period. Turning to cash, the company held $43.2 million of cash equivalents and short-term bank deposits as of June 30, 2022. We believe we're well-financed to achieve multiple potentially value-creating milestones into the first half of 2024. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Phil.
Thank you, Mali. In closing, as is our custom, I would like to take a few moments to summarize our key upcoming milestones. First, submission of an NDA to the FDA for motixafortide as a novel mobilization agent for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation, expected in the next four to six weeks. Secondly, announcement of initial results for part 2 of the phase I/II- A trial of AGI-134 in solid tumors in the second half of 2022. Now for some slightly longer-term milestones, potential FDA approval of motixafortide in 2023. Potential U.S. launch of motixafortide in stem cell mobilization in 2023. Initiation of a phase II-B randomized study in PDAC under our collaboration with GenFleet in 2023. Initiation of phase II study for AGI-134 in 2023.
With that, we have now concluded the formal part of our presentation. Operator, we will now open up the call to questions.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will begin the question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one. To withdraw your question, please press star two. If you are using speaker equipment, kindly lift the handset before pressing the numbers. Your questions will be pulled in the order they are received. Please stand by while we pull for your question. The first question is from Joe Pantginis from H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.
Joe, are you there?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, now we can. Go ahead.
Oh, great. Thank you. Thank you. A few logistical questions. First, glad to see that the NDA filing is on track. Just curious in what i's you need to dot and t's to cross that are still outstanding.
Well, they wanna know what, you know, what is left to do. Just
Uh-
Go ahead.
Hi, John, it's Abi Vainstein-Haras speaking. You know, there are
Several steps when you're doing a submission. You need to write, and you need to publish, and we are on track. We are completing our work here in BioLineRx of writing, and we are moving forward with all the publishing and all the technical issues. For this reason, we can already say that we are on track. We are sure about that.
Okay. With regard to sort of pre-launch activities, I'll ask a few questions on that. First, I wanted to ask about the manufacturing preparedness, should you be approved.
Yeah. I mean, we've already, you know, completed our validation batches. Our API is manufactured in the U.S. at a well-known site. Our drug product is manufactured in Europe at a well-known site. You know, we've already started working with secondary packaging, et cetera, et cetera, as we mentioned on the call. We feel that we are very much, you know, on track for a timely launch if approved.
Got it. With regard to commercial prep, and I appreciate all the details you shared in your prepared comments and definitely great hire in Holly. I guess you talk about obviously looking at all options in the U.S., so let's just focus on the potential if you were to bring forward yourself, at least in the beginning. What can you be doing right now, but not necessarily pulling the trigger on with regard to, say, pre-hire types of details for a sales force? And what kind of size would you potentially be looking at? Because hem-oncs are generally pretty specific.
Yeah. I mean, I'll turn it over to Holly in a minute. I just wanna say, as I mentioned, we have not made any decision at this point. You know, all options are on the table. At the moment, we are speaking with potential co-commercialization partners, as well as, you know, looking at the potential for going out on our own. We're doing quite a number, as I said, of pre-launch activities, all of which are applicable under any of the scenarios as far as commercialization. I just wanna say that briefly, and I, you know, be happy to turn it over to Holly to ask, you know, to add any more color.
Sure. Thanks. This is Holly. You know, our big goal, whether we, you know, regardless of the conversation, structure, partner, self-commercialization, is to be able to have a launch just as close to PDUFA date as possible. There's many activities that, regardless of, you know, who is going to market, absolutely need to be initiated, ahead of time. We've already evaluated those, and we are well on our way with things such as supply chain, thinking about, market access, thinking about, customers and, you know, the overall, go-to-market strategy. I think Phil mentioned some of these, but a little bit more color there is secondary packaging. We're well on our way with sterilization process. We've got 3PL partners identified.
State licensing is another long lead time item that we've considered. We've been looking into through talking with customers and market research, demand drivers to be able to really assess the marketplace, establishing through medical affairs outside of commercial but medical affairs, relationships with both accounts and transplanters. Like I said, looking at the most important market access type of decisions, such as pricing variables, et cetera. Regardless of the commercialization strategy that we move forward with, all of those things are items that need to be in the pre-launch period, and we have initiated things in all of those regards.
Got it. Thanks for that, Holly. I guess one last question. I mean, maybe not looking to disclose today, so, you know, and it's option dependent as well. When do you think you might be or BioLineRx might be in the position to describe clinical plans beyond multiple myeloma that you alluded to?
Holly, would you like to take that?
Yeah. I will take that. Indeed, we are not communicating right now our plans. It doesn't mean that we don't have a lot of plans. Currently, our focus is on the NDA submission. However, we have several ideas on how to continue the development of BL-8040, either in the area of the hematological disease as well as in solid tumor. As you may remember, we have a deal with GenFleet in order to continue the development of BL-8040 in pancreatic cancer. In this world, we continue to work. We have a study, an investigator-initiated study also in pancreatic cancer in the U.S., in Columbia University.
We have some other ideas on how to develop to continue and to expand the development of BL-8040 in the area of hematology. I think that we will need to wait a little bit more before we can discuss these other ideas.
I appreciate it. Thanks for all the added color, guys.
All right. Thanks so much. Have a great day, Joe.
The next question is from Mark of Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.
Thanks for taking the questions. Just a couple for me. And just wanted to seek some additional clarity on the cash runway guidance. Is the guidance you're offering today inclusive of all pre-launch expenses that you think are gonna be necessary to support commercialization? Or is it right now just really focusing or inclusive of the long lead time items? That's the first question. Second question, I was just wondering if there's been any news or updates from the academic sponsored trial in frontline PDAC. Are we possibly gonna be seeing any data from that trial later this year? Thanks for taking the questions.
Okay. Abi, you wanna take the second one first?
Yes. I will. First of all, you know, as an investigator-initiated study, we have less influence on what happened there. We hope to have some, you know, results to share in the upcoming months and see how we will move forward in this regard in terms of pancreatic cancer. At the moment, I cannot commit to any specific day, but it should be in the upcoming months.
As far as the cash runway, you know, we mentioned that we have $43 million in cash, which again, as we mentioned, is enough to take us to our major upcoming milestones, which include most of the pre-launch activities. As a, you know, pre-commercial stage company, we believe that, you know, we'll have multiple options available to us if and when the time comes.
All right. Thanks for clarifying and thanks for taking our questions.
Thank you. Have a great day.
The next question is from John Vandermosten of Zacks. Please go ahead.
Hello, everyone, and good morning and good afternoon. I'd like to understand the GenFleet arrangement. So they're doing a trial, a triple combination trial in China. Will it only remain there? Is the deal only in the Chinese geography? What if it's successful and how might that expand out to other regions?
I can just say that this is a trial that they are performing a phase II-B randomized study in 200 patients in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer. They do not have any territorial rights in China, Greater China, anywhere. We are keeping all of the global rights and all of the global indications to the product. They are entitled to a low single-digit royalty if motixafortide is approved.
Once we receive, hopefully, if the data is positive, we believe and positive in a randomized, you know, well-designed, randomized controlled phase II-B study, we believe that we will be able to take that data and speak to, additional partners, larger global partners, to go forward with a clinical development plan to a phase III study, and again, if successful then to registration.
They'd be eligible for that royalty on a global basis as long as it's used in that triple combination, but that's it?
No, they would be entitled to a royalty on motixafortide sales in general, but again, a very small single-digit royalty. It's also capped. We haven't given much. We haven't you know given that much guidance on it. We gave overall guidance at this point.
Okay. The checkpoint inhibitor that they're using, that's their own internally developed checkpoint inhibitor?
Yeah, we haven't disclosed that. I mean, they have access to a checkpoint inhibitor.
Okay. I know there have been a number of them developed in China that, you know, are similar in the way they act compared to the ones developed.
That's our feeling.
Okay. Questions on motixafortide in autologous stem cell transplants. If approval comes, it'll be in multiple myeloma patients, but obviously the potential market's a little bit larger. Are there any efforts you can make to use it in a broader transplant setting, such as in, perhaps allogeneic transplants or beyond multiple myeloma? What would you need to do to get there? I mean, perhaps not another trial is necessary, perhaps it is. What do you see the pathway there for expanding the use outside of the multiple myeloma area?
I will take this question. Again, you're right. There are other places, other indications for stem cell mobilization. However, the biggest and largest indication is in multiple myeloma, is the one that we choose. This is one of the reason for what we choose multiple myeloma because it's the largest and there were still an unmet need. These are increasing all the time because of the increase of the induction treatment and the age of the patients. Therefore, this is the larger market. If we want to, you know, to have an extended indication in stem cell mobilization, we will need to have some kind of data from clinical trials. The type of clinical trial that we need to do, we need to check it again.
There are, as I said before, there are other opportunities that we are evaluating in parallel, and we will need to decide what is the best for us to invest in order to extend the label.
Okay, great. Last one from me is for you, Mali , on R&D expenditures. Will AGI-134 expenses continue to increase as the year progresses? Is that the end? Is that what you were thinking?
Yes. As we already published, we've completed the recruitment of the AGI-134, and we're working on the analysis of the blood samples. That's why you see the increase in the R&D expenses related to the AGI-134.
Okay. They should remain at similar levels or maybe drop off a bit as we move into the second half?
I guess it will drop off a little bit by the end of the year.
Okay, great. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.
Thanks, John. Have a great day.
If there are any additional questions, please press star one. To withdraw your question, please press star two. Please stand by while we poll for more questions. There are no further questions at this time. Before I ask Mr. Philip Serlin to go ahead with his closing statement, I would like to remind participants that a replay of this call is scheduled to begin two hours after the conference. In the U.S., please call 1-888-295-2634. In Israel, please call 03-925-5904. Internationally, please call 972-3-925-5904. Mr. Serlin, would you like to make your concluding statement?
Yes, I would. Thank you, operator. To summarize, we remain on track to submit our NDA for motixafortide and stem cell mobilization in the next four to six weeks, while in parallel, we advance key pre-launch activities. We are evaluating different options with respect to the commercialization of motixafortide in the U.S., either independently or with a partner. In either case, our ultimate goal is to execute a robust launch if approved that maximizes the value of the asset. We believe we can capture a significant share of the U.S. market, estimated to be in excess of $360 million and growing rapidly. From both a clinical and pharmacoeconomic perspective, we believe motixafortide on top of GCSF can quickly become the standard of care in this important indication.
At the same time, we are pleased to advance motixafortide in pancreatic cancer through our GenFleet agreement, and we are rapidly approaching a key data readout for AGI-134. I am very pleased with the progress that we made during the second quarter and look forward to a very productive back half of the year. Thank you all very much for your continued interest in BioLineRx, and we look forward to providing our next comprehensive update in November. Be safe and have a great day.
Thank you. This concludes the BioLineRx Second Quarter 2022 Results Conference Call. Thank you for your participation. You may go ahead and disconnect.
Come up again, so we don't have to get an opinion and fall behind, an opinion as to why we're putting on a ballot. Give us authority. They can change state statute to give us authority.
Yeah
to reject that ballot.
At the legislature.
Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Ask our state representatives and our state senators. I think that it's come from just me, I think that would mean a lot more because I think everyone up here has been pretty clear that I won't be voting for this. I imagine most people up here won't be voting for this. If we can prevent it legally, I think it would mean a lot more coming from all of us going to our delegation than just me. I'm gonna do it regardless, but I'd rather have it come from this board, is what I'm saying. That's my compromise. If we could ask our delegation to clarify, giving us the authority moving forward by changing state statute, Madam Chair.
I would say by any governing body or otherwise, because Tillman Gerngross issue comes before us as well. I mean, you could almost at least there's somewhat of a similarity there. We had to vote on that.
I think I supported that.
Right.
By giving authority, providing more authority. My question to you is, would you like me to draft something and bring it back, or would you like authority to make
That's not gonna be in time for this.
To be 100% clear, no. This is moving forward, so this is.
Oh, no, I know that.
Yeah.
I'm just saying, so you're looking for the future.
I'm looking to the future, Madam Chair.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.
I lost this one a couple times. My question is, would you like me to draft something, or would you like the board to give you authority to write it? I'm good with either one. There's not a timing issue.
Do you wanna bring it to the next meeting?
Yeah. I'll bring it to the next meeting, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Make it part of the agenda if you have time.
Just be clear, there's no motion here, so status quo stands. Thank you for your indulgence on this, Madam Chair.
All right. Item J6.
Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. It is requested one authorize purchasing services to reject RFP P72221 Medical Director Services. Two, authorize purchasing services to reject all bids received for RFP P72221. Three, authorize staff to reissue an RFP for Medical Director Services with revised language. Four, approve the county manager to execute any necessary extensions to the medical director's contract.
Motion to approve. I have a motion by Commissioner Pritchett.
Second.
Second by Commissioner Tobia. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. I know you guys put a lot of work into all this stuff. It just seems so quick when we just pass a motion like that. Thank you. Thanks for all your work on this. All right, item K, public comment. Ms. Delaney?
Commissioner Tobia.
Oh.
J7.
Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped you.
It got moved all the time.
Oh, okay. I have an old agenda.
It was at 7.
Madam Chair?
Yes.
Thank you. I apologize, this was my fault. I certainly did not mean this to be in consent, and that's it was pulled from consent to put on for a clarity issue. Anyway, last meeting, it was brought up to my attention that I had a couple spelling errors on my handouts, and the reason for this change to BCC-97 is to give me a little more time to proofread my slides. It amends BCC-97 by bifurcating the presentations of not only of the public as well as with the board. That is the one change, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Pritchett.
Commissioner Tobia, if it was just you, I'd be good with it, but we have elections coming up, and we've lived through some interesting past. My recommendation would be that even if you didn't get it out on time, that we have 24 hours before it's sent to the other commissioners so we can review it and be ready. Of course, this is just for the county stuff. Anything you do, like, when you used to show Billy in diapers, I'm fine with that as well. I think just for us, I think if you can't get it to the agenda at the time, if it's just sent to the commissioner so that we have time to review it.
Again, if it was just you, it'd be different, but I'm looking at many people running for offices right now, and I can just see that it could cause a situation in the future with some abuse. If that would be okay.
Commissioner Tobia.
Yeah. I'm sorry. This is the first time I've seen this.
Yeah.
This is different. The people running for office out there would still have to abide by that this would be us. I've only taken the 24-hour provision off and one of the elected officials.
I-
What the-
If it's county business, I'm just thinking if we at least get it to the county attorney so she can just send it out to all five commissioners so that we can have an ability to just kinda look at it, and then you still have time probably to fix your typos. Even with me, I would hope if I'm doing a presentation, I'll just send it to them and have them send it to you so you know what's coming. This is a formal presentation for county business. What you do in your board reports, I don't think that would make any difference. You still do billing, the diapers, and all those things you've done in the past.
I think this is just a good idea 'cause we've had things in the past where they've gotten very, very personal with presentations, and I think we just need to be ready for that before it hits. You haven't, but I just think it's a good idea. We had to sit through hours of emails and why they were wrong and right. I just think it's just a safety.
Madam Chair?
Mm-hmm.
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve the. I've had that issue before, that things come up in board reports that were substantive in nature, and many times there were costs associated with them, and I'd put something on the agenda trying to remove any type of cost to be brought up because I don't think it's fair to the public. With the exception of course, emergency costs that we had no control over. Wouldn't us allowing PowerPoint presentations. I have, Madam Chair, I have a compromise here that, you know, would, I think, help to figure both of those. Number one is, instead of providing them to Don, that they be run through the county manager's office.
If we're concerned about it coming from one office and being presented up there, I think you had a good suggestion a while ago that I abided by, which was the disclaimer on it. I would be more than willing, 'cause there is some gravitas when it's big and back there, but the disclaimer being on it. I would be more than willing. To be clear, I have no PowerPoints coming up.
I know.
I have no plans for PowerPoints. I just got, rightfully so, picked on for my poor spelling. I just wanted to help solve this. I'm trying to figure out what happens, like, these handouts that I passed out. Those handouts were not attached to the agenda to the best of my knowledge, and yet I brought them out. I thought the PowerPoints were more advantageous to the public 'cause they would have access to the source information that we're getting. If you wanna go in a different direction, I'm certainly more than willing to do that and hand stuff out instead of put it up on the big screen.
I just think it's probably best for the people that watch and people that participate to put it up there big when we get into complex stuff.
No, no.
If that's if you wanna go in a different direction, more than willing, but unfortunately, again, I think I had four or five things on this agenda, so you know, time was short.
I know you're trying not to deal with the tourists again. Whatever that word was, it got me tickled because Commissioner Zonka found it. I see what you're saying, maybe if we can think of a way, 'cause I know you understand what I'm trying to protect us from as well.
If I may, it says video, PowerPoint, and electronic presentations. It doesn't say anything about handouts or documents. I mean.
Madam Chair, handouts, I make handouts for everyone up here, plus the clerk, and public has access to that after the meeting, right? My point is, when we put it up there for source material, then not only do the people in the audience, but those watching have access to it immediately.
I'm probably good if we go to county manager's office again, just in case we get a really doozy up here and they try to put something on there that's awful.
We're talking about commissioners, right?
We can get a doodle as a commissioner.
I-
In there.
Madam Chair, I thoroughly trust the county manager.
Okay.
I believe that, I'm even willing to go further and put the disclaimer on there that goes even further than that.
Okay.
Either one, both, I think.
I think that's good.
I've run that by him, and he said he was okay with that.
Okay, I'm good with that.
Just, we'll see somebody else coming up, so.
I don't know, but if we have.
The chair.
Commission meeting.
Kinda like what we've done before up to this point, you know? Give it to the chair in that way.
Yeah, make the chair responsible.
'Cause we can't talk anymore.
The chair is anyway.
Yeah, that's good. 'Cause then if Kristine gets something later, then she can just kind of
Rita or Joe Tobia.
Madam Chair, not that.
John Tobia.
There's not a sunshine issue. To be 100% clear, there's n ot a sunshine issue, but it's a step towards a sunshine issue. The reason it's a step towards a sunshine issue, because there needs to be at least two things. There needs to be information transfer from one commissioner to another, and then there needs to be some response.
Mm-hmm.
This provides for that first step. Again, I don't think you would do that. I don't think anyone up here would do that. Commissioner Pritchett, we don't know who's coming after us, and I don't think putting the temptation before us where there's no steps to sunshine if we provide it to the county manager because he has no authority to vote.
Okay, I think maybe go to the county manager, and if he struggles with something, he can talk to the chair, and then they can remove it. How's that?
If that's the direction the county manager would wanna go, I certainly would support that.
Is that heartburn for you?
The proposed motion would say that any PowerPoint presentation or electronic by a commissioner would come through the county manager. The Chair would not get it unless I had a concern with it, and then would show it to the Chair?
No, Madam Chair-
Okay. I thought that's what I was hearing.
This is just getting weird. We're getting way in the weeds.
Can I just weigh in here, please?
I don't see what the difficulty is with 24-hour notice for a video, PowerPoint, or other electronic. It doesn't say anything about handouts. Obviously the board has the discretion to deal with handouts. We've had issues with other PowerPoint presentations and attacks on people and all kinds of stuff, so somebody needs to put their eyes on it. I wouldn't wanna put the county manager in a spot to say, you know, "You're gonna make a decision on whether or not you think it's too risky or risqué or too obscene or too offensive?
I'm obviously gonna follow the board direction. I'm just trying to understand what it is.
I'm just trying to give you some cover, 'cause I don't think I'd wanna put you in that position to be, have that subjective opinion.
I do appreciate that.
I'm thinking with the 24-hour.
Wait.
Oh, you snoozed, you lose.
My name's up.
Yes. Okay.
No, no, thanks.
Jumping quicker.
I'm quicker.
Okay.
I think we're trying to fix a problem here that doesn't exist, and we're spending a lot of time on something that doesn't need to be talked about. Currently, I don't know if we even have a written policy, but we have a policy that if you want to put something up there, you contact the chair. We, in future boards, will elect a chair. They're not going to elect a chair that's gonna approve something that would be annoying or offensive. I don't see the purpose of this discussion. What am I missing?
Commissioner Tobia.
Well, you're missing a couple things. Number one, we do have a policy. It was included in the packet. It's called BCC-97. Number two, the policy.
It was?
The policy you just described or the practice you just described is not what's currently in policy. I think that's an issue, right? It's the fact that we do have a policy, there are things in it, and you've just explained why we probably do need a policy. Listen, this isn't the cross I wanna die on. If you guys are not comfortable with having PowerPoint presentations up there, but I don't know, bringing up term limits at the last second, you know, that was one I was willing to die on.
That was brought up in a discussion. That's all I was.
That was one I was willing to die on. This one I'm not. If you guys, you know, wanna go with the status quo, I'm not gonna fight on that one. I'll pull back the proposed change, and we'll go with the status quo. Commissioner Smith just, it's BCC-97, and the policy you just mentioned is not policy. It's the give it to John Walker and then be disseminated out if you do have a PowerPoint presentation in the future.
Madam Chair, the current policy as written wasn't specific as to how to handle commissioner electronic presentations. There was some question as to whether they needed to be following the same guidance that is followed by the public or whether they needed to be treated differently. In an attempt to resolve that's where this came from. The standard language is sort of silent, and staff was treating the commissioner presentations in a similar manner as the public presentations.
Commissioner Pritchett.
I just want to say what Commissioner Smith said is it's really what we even though this might not be written policy, but through the years we've been doing this, the chair gets the whole agenda, looks at things and if there was ever something, you would like say something like, "We're not gonna have those photos come up on the screen." We really have done that. That's really not 'cause it's your job to run the meeting. You would have to decide what's appropriate or not appropriate. With the commission, it's a little different. I think as long as it's county business, I think 24 hours is good. We shouldn't be throwing county business items that's on the agenda up unless it's under our board reports, which is a little different at that time, too.
I think we might be chasing down a problem we don't have yet. But I do agree with Commissioner Tobia. We're trying to avoid anything that would cause a break in sunshine, but I don't know that we've had that issue so far, so.
I think, our county attorney was trying to get us to clean up the language so they have clarity.
I think 24 hours is fine if you're good.
Honestly, as long as the chair has it before the meeting, even if it's an hour before, as long as they can put their eyes on it to make sure it's not offensive. 'Cause there has been some pretty offensive things that have made itself to this screen. I think that we have an obligation at least, you know, to keep a professional setting and to make sure that commissioners aren't abusing their power and abusing residents. Whether we like the resident or not, it doesn't matter. That's been done up here, and I think that's kind of where that came from, that unwritten policy. I'm fine with putting a policy in place. Maybe we lose the 24 hours, but I think it should go to the chair. Chair is ultimately responsible for the meeting.
Madam Chair.
Yes.
First of all, I'd like to apologize to the county attorney. I had my issue was with something else. When I saw this appear on the agenda, I was surprised that it was under my office. I was only looking at it from one angle. I wasn't looking at it from the other angle. There does need to be a change here for the very reason that the county attorney pointed out, to just add in that we can just add in us into the members of the public, so the same guidelines for everything from obscenity, pornography, and whatever is added in there. I apologize. That was not my intent to misstate, but it was silent.
If we can just put us all in the same field, then we'll keep it the way it is, just with the addition of us. I think that's probably the right way to go at this point. Motion to approve the change of policy BCC-97, putting commissioners into the same requirements as members of the public, which include everything stated in whatever section I, it looks like Video, PowerPoint, and other electronic presentations, Madam Chair.
Motion by Commissioner Tobia. Do I have a second? Motion fails for lack of second.
Madam Chair?
Yes.
Can I point out this. Everything you guys wanted is here.
It's not necessary.
Your argument was that it was necessary because what we've had in
I had-
I give up, Madam Chair. I'm sorry.
No.
It's fine. It's fine. It's A-okay.
I myself agree with it. I would just like to see that discretion in there.
No, I'm okay.
that Commissioner Pritchett brought up. Commissioner Pritchett, do you wanna make a motion including the language that you've included?
I do. Can we bring it back to next meeting? 'Cause I wasn't prepared for him to make that compromise, so I just kinda worked through this. Yeah, we're not in a hurry, right?
Yeah, I agree.
We just bring it back this next meeting and just kinda tighten it up a little, clean it up.
Sure.
Okay.
Madam Chair?
Sure.
Can we assign a county attorney to do that and it comes under the county attorney's if the county attorney put it on the agenda?
Okay.
That way they'll feel more clear that it's not coming out of my office.
Oh, I didn't write the agenda, so I assumed it was coming from your office.
Yes. I apologize for that. That's why I pulled it off. None of my stuff will be on consent unless it's a resolution, Madam Chair.
I wonder where you're getting that. I'd be glad to give it a shot too.
Okay. I'll get with the county attorney. You guys can figure it out. All right, moving on to public comment finally. I think she may have left. Katie Delaney? She was patient, but she's gone. All right, moving on to board reports. Mr. Abate.
I don't have a report.
Ms. Shurick .
I do not.
Commissioner Pritchett. Commissioner Tobia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On the July nineteenth, I suggested the board the idea of removing ourselves from the agreements regarding any athletic fields owned by Brevard County Public Schools but maintained by Brevard County, as this money could be redirected into our own parks. As I am a commissioner whose district includes the South Parks area, along with Commissioner Zonka and parts of Commissioner Smith's district, my focus were on Gemini, D3, Hoover, D5, and Century, D4. After looking at the maps and where fields are located and where available county parks are located, the options beachside are extremely limited. In trying to keep the access to parks equitable through the south area, the idea of possibly a long-term lease of the current fields at Hoover is something I think we should consider.
I don't think it's fair to put county resources into a temporary contract. We have long-term contracts with Brevard County Public Schools for a whole number of things. This would just be similar, so we would have the comfortability of putting substantial improvement in those parks. Century can be redirected to Wickham Park also in D4, if that's the direction. Gemini can be redirected to South Beach Community Center if that was the idea, but it was more looking at Hoover in the geographic region. What I'd like to do is make a motion, direct staff to contact appropriate parties with Brevard County Public Schools to gauge the responsiveness and willingness to enter into these long-term contracts with Brevard County Schools.
Namely starting with the south part of the county, that being Hoover Middle School. If it works there, then maybe we can expand this program out. Again, this is not removing any dollars. In fact, I'd like to see more dollars directed into the parks. The one that I'm looking at in the south happens to be in your district, Madam Chair, and I certainly would like your buy-in to enter into a contract to see if the school board is interested in doing that, Madam Chair.
As long as, you know, we're committed to, and not just to parks, but, you know, as a commission, the commission stays committed to maintaining those parks. I like the idea of us having a little more control over the property.
Madam Chair, that is the absolute idea. When we only have it for a guaranteed five years, there's no point in putting in substantial capital.
Not only that, any events that they have supersede, you know, any of the county's, so I don't like that either.
That's why I would like us to be in control of that, Madam Chair. That is the idea, and hopefully, that would be worked out. Largely, those fields are not used by Hoover. I've met with the vice principal there, and they only use a small portion. For security reasons, and there may need to be fences, but that's something that could be worked out in negotiations to see if we wanna go in this direction.
Great.
It's my favorite idea of yours all day.
There is a motion there because I think it means a lot more if we direct staff knows they have support of the board into negotiating with another government body.
Okay. Motion by Commissioner Tobia, second by Commissioner Smith. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Smith?
No report.
I don't have any report. I just wanna wish those kids heading off to college good luck and, we'll see you on the weekend when you need your laundry done. With that, meeting adjourned.