Letters to the Editor, Oct. 27
Marco Island’s legislative priorities
I was the city’s spokesperson when Marco Island requested help with five top priorities from our state legislative delegation – Sen. Passidomo and Reps. Rommel and Donalds. Marco Island was allotted more time than any other group. Our state officials listened carefully and asked excellent questions.
Vice Chair Grifoni joined me at the podium to respond to many questions about our first priority: the right to provide our own emergency medical service. Ambulances on Marco Island are now owned and run by Collier County.
State law requires that Marco Island apply to Collier County if we wish to have our own ambulance service. Why do we want to control our emergency service? Because we are unique. Our population is 10 years older than the population of the City of Naples – and 20 years older than Collier County. Just as all of us feel safer with our own police department, we should be allowed to feel more medically secure, with our own emergency department.
During the hurricane, Collier County abandoned Marco Island, taking away our only ambulance. We argued that we had a secure, high ground location for the ambulance, and we of course had high, safe shelter for the crew. We do not dispute the county’s decision – we dispute the county’s right to tell Marco Island that we cannot take control of the department and make those decisions for ourselves. I remained on the Island, as did over 100 city first responders, water-sewer and other employees, electricity and phone and cable trucks, and (by my estimate) 1,000 citizens. These people deserved to have medical services – they had police, fire, water, sewer, electric, phone, and cable people, but not emergency medical transport.
The county commissioners have made it clear that they will oppose our having local control unless we submit to conditions that amount to remaining under county control. That is why city council decided that our approach would include asking the state to let Marco Island apply directly for a license, bypassing the county. This gets to the heart of “home rule,” local control, so important to Marco Island.
We are a long way off, and maybe city council or the voters will decide not to move forward. We need to understand the costs, the administrative implications, the organization structure, and lots more. City council envisions a referendum in August of 2018 to let the voters tell us whether they want to increase taxes to pay for our own emergency medical service. The recent MICA survey indicated strong support, even in the face of a tax increase. In that survey, 1,711 citizens voted “yes,” almost 65 percent.
As our second priority, we asked our legislators to support building a gymnasium and classroom building safe from hurricanes and storm surges for the Marco Island Academy, which is the only public school on Marco Island not to receive funding for land or buildings from Collier County Public Schools. We emphasized that MIA is unique in that it completes Marco Island’s ability to offer a full education to our children. The project would also serve as a community shelter – which Marco Island does not have – in the event of an emergency.
We requested help in funding a renovated fire station, so that it can serve as an emergency command center, can house women as well as men, and is up to modern living standards. (We will make that happen, but we asked for state assistance.) We asked for continued help with the San Marco Road drainage project and the off-Island Marco Shores project. This is a difficult budget year in Tallahassee because of Hurricane Irma, but our first request – that we have the right to be in charge of our own emergency medical service – requires no funding, and we believe there is strong support for our other requests.
Larry Honig, Chair, Marco Island City Council
Open Letter to Councilor Jared Grifoni
Councilor Jared Grifoni: You strike me as a bright, young, ambitious lawyer-turned-politician. However, your guest commentary demanding citizen support for replacing the current County’s ambulance service with a similar City-owned service, (COCPN- Support the city’s efforts, Oct. 20) is worrisome in that you focused more on insinuations and emotion rather than on informative, substantiated pro and con facts. The latter is required in order for Marco Island voters to reach a knowledgeable, intelligent decision, is it not?
You stated the city cannot have a Certificate of Public Convenience and Need, (COPCN), unless the county approved it. However, Senator Passidomo told me the city could bypass county completely and apply directly to Florida State. Like a driver’s license, a COPCN is a state-issued certificate, not county.
You implied county “outright opposition” to the city’s COPCN application. Wrong. In fact, the county said they would support Marco’s COPCN “as long as it did not cost the county anything.” That county condition ought to be emphasized to Marco voters instead of being glossed over. It translates into “Marco must continue paying for county medical services, (currently around $3M a year), even if they are providing and paying for their own separate medical service.
You suggest many, if not most Marco Islanders support efforts to get our own COPCN, citing a 64.9 percent “yes” response to a MICA survey. However, you forgot to mention the number of responders. If 15,000 folks responded, that 64.9 percentage would certainly be significant, (about 10,000). Conversely, if only 1,500 returns were received, the resultant nine hundred “yesses” well, not so much. This sort of numbers game is always popular with politicians. Don’t do it, Jared.
You complained that “During Hurricane Irma, Collier County pulled our only EMS unit from the island which left our citizens in a dangerous situation … ” C’mon, Councilor Grifoni, are you not aware that the city had issued a mandatory evacuation order with the warning that there would be no emergency services available to those who ignored that order? Would you have kept the ambulance and crew on-island during the hurricane risking either or both being taken permanently out of service by the predicted 10 to 15-feet tidal surge and hundred fifty MPH winds?
Please do not misunderstand my position. At this point, I have not reached an informed opinion regarding the COPCN issue due precisely to a lack of objective data, i.e. costs, obligations, responsibilities, (what are we signing up for?), new bureaucracies, what specific problems will be solved and what new problems created. However, two thoughts keep reoccurring:
1. Beware any political issue constantly playing the emotional card and,
2. Beware replacing what has worked with what sounds good.