Item R1
S/2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
C ounty of M onroe
Mayor David Rice, District 4
Mayor Pro Tem Craig Cates, District 1
The Florida Keys
Michelle Coldiron, District 2
Vacant, District 3
Holly Merrill Raschein, District 5
County Commission Meeting
March 16, 2022
Agenda Item Number: R.1
Agenda Item Summary #10016
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: County Attorney's Office
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Bob Shillinger (305) 292-3470
n/a
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: County Attorney Report for March 2022.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Monthly report is attached.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Report.
DOCUMENTATION:
CAY Report March 2022
MASTER FINES AND COSTS SPREADSHEET AS OF FEBRUARY 2022
Risk report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3175
S/2
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
n/a
REVIEWED BY:
Cynthia Hall Completed 03/01/2022 10:46 AM
Bob Shillinger Completed 03/01/2022 3:50 PM
Liz Yongue Completed 03/01/2022 3:59 PM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 03/16/2022 9:00 AM
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3176
S/2/b
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor David Rice, District 4
County of Monroe
Mayor Pro Tem Craig Cates, District 1
Michelle Coldiron, District 2
The Florida Keys
Vacant, District 3
Holly Merrill Raschein, District 5
Robert B. Shillinger, County Attorney**Office of the County Attorney
th
Pedro J. Mercado, Senior Assistant County Attorney**1111 12Street, Suite 408
Cynthia L. Hall, Assistant County Attorney**Key West, FL 33040
Christine Limbert-Barrows, Assistant County Attorney**Phone (305) 292-3470
Derek V. Howard, Assistant County Attorney**Fax (305) 292-3516
Peter H. Morris, Assistant County Attorney**
Patricia Eables, Assistant County Attorney
Paunece Scull, Assistant County Attorney
Joseph X. DiNovo, Assistant County Attorney**
James Molenaar, Assistant County Attorney
** Board Certified in City, County & Local Government Law
To:Mayor & Commissioners
From:Bob Shillinger, County Attorney
Date:March 1,2022
Re:March 2022 County Attorney Report
Dmptfe!Tfttjpot!evsjoh!uif!Nbsdi!Nffujoh
th
Roy's Trailer Park v. Eric Noel, Marie Noel and Monroe County,16Cir. 19CA175K
nd
Key Haven Assoc. Ent., Inc. v. FDEP, DEO, &Monroe County, 2Cir. 21CA1613
th
Monroe County v. Buirley, 16Cir.19CA656K
Dbtft!pg!Joufsftu!bu!Usjbm!Dpvsu!Mfwfm
1.Roy’s Trailer Park v. Noel & Monroe County, 19-CA-175-K (lower tribunal: CC-K-18-
112). Declaratory Judgment suit filed by Roy'sagainst County as part of its eviction suit
against its tenant. On 10/4/18, the County countersued the trailer park and the park
residents, seeking an injunction prohibiting occupancy at the park until serious fire and
life safety issues have been addressed, and for appointment of a receiver, and a
declaratory relief cause of action to determine whether the owner or tenants are
responsible for the code violations.On 8/5/21, the County tookthe deposition of the
park owner's principal, Michael Browning. On 12/7/21,the Court denied the park
owner’smotion for summary judgment. Nfejbujpo!jt!tdifevmfe!gps!4021033/
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
d
2.Key Haven Assoc. Enterprises, Inc. v. FDEP, FDEO and Monroe County, 2Jud. Cir.
(Leon County) Case No. 21-CA-1613. The Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory relief
and inverse condemnation against FDEP and FDEO, alleging that denial of fill permits
by FDEPfor 5 of its submerged Key Haven lots constituted a taking. Following a motion
to dismiss by FDEO in which the agency DEO argued that Plaintiff failed to include the
County as an indispensable party because the denials were based in part on the
County’s land development regulations, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaintnaming
the County.Uif!CPDD!xjmm!ipme!b!dmptfe!tfttjpo!po!4027033/!!Uif!Dpvouzt
botxfs!jt!evf!po!4032033/!!
1
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3177
S/2/b
3.Monroe County v. Kenneth&Anita Buirley,19-CA-656-K.This is a code lien
enforcement action where the fines exceed $700,000.00. The property is located on El
Monte Lane on BigCoppittKey.The Court authorized the County to demolishand clear
the property of the unsafe structures. After suit was filed, the Buirleys sold the property
to theJay Archbell,who demolished thestructures and brought the property into
compliance. Mr. Archbellhas offered to resolve the case for $16,500.00,which is far
below the County Attorney’s settlement authority established by Resolution.
4.Monroe County v. Sugarloaf VFD, Inc. & Sugarloaf Wi-Fi, Inc.,CAK 17-631. The
County sued both SVFD and Wi-Fi to invalidate a lease between SVFD and Wi-Fi on
the grounds that SVFD had not approved the lease in an open meeting. The trial court
ruled in favor of the County and voided the lease. Wi-Fi appealed and lost. On 1/31/21,
the County filed a motion for attorneys’fees to recover attorneys’fees and costs from
SVFD as the prevailing party. Mediation between Wi-Fi, the SVFD, and the County is
ongoing. On 11/22/2021, the Court entered a judgment for attorneys’fees and costs in
favor of the County in the amount of $217,159.86. Uifqbsujft!bsf!tujmm!jo!nfejbujpo/!!
Jg!uibu!qspdftt!jt!votvddfttgvm-!uifsf!xjmm!cf!bo!jufn!po!uif!5031033!bhfoeb!up!
bqqspwf!b!tfuumfnfou!xjui!TWGExifsfcz!uif!Dpvouz!xjmm!bddfqu!uif!usbotgfs!pg!
Gjsf!Tubujpo!Op/!21!jo!mjfv!pg!npwjoh!up!dpmmfdu!po!uif!buupsofztgfft!boe!dptut/
th
5.Mark Thompson v. Monroe County and Monroe County Planning Department, 16Jud.
Cir. Case No. 22-CA-113-K(new case). On 2/24/22, Plaintiff, a former pumpout boat
employee, filed a complaint suing Monroe County under the Jones Act for injuries arising
during his employment. The complaint has not yet been served. Tubgg!xjmm!cf!
sfrvftujoh!b!dmptfe!tfttjpo!gps!uif!Bqsjm!nffujoh!up!ejtdvtt!uif!dbtf/
6.KITK, LLC v. Monroe County, CAP 19-351. Property owner filed a Complaint seeking a
judicial declaration that F.S. 419.001(12) preempts Monroe County’s land development
regulations from prohibiting, on its allegedly residentially zoned property, its alleged
community residential home of six or fewer residents.On 10/6/20, the County filed its
answer. The plaintiff and the County have engaged in settlement discussions and
anticipate reaching a settlement.
7.Sunset Garden Estate Land Trust v. Monroe County, CAP 19-460. Property owner filed
a two-count complaint alleging that various state laws including the Right to Farm Act,
F.S. 823.14, preempt the County’s land development regulations from applying to its
parcel and seeking judicial declarations that itsalleged agricultural activities are immune
from the County’s land development regulations. On 2/27/20, the Plaintiffs filed a
second amended Complaint. The Countyfiled an answer on 6/29/21.Po!3033033!uif!
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
Dpvsu!ejtnjttfeuifQmbjoujggttvju!bgufs!uifzgbjmfe!up!tvcnju!bqspqptfedbtf!
nbobhfnfou0tdifevmjoh!qmboup!uif!Dpvsubt!sfrvjsfe!cz!qsjps!Dpvsu!psefs/!Po!
3036033!uif!Qmbjoujggtgjmfe!b!npujpo!sfrvftujoh!uif!Dpvsu!up!tfu!btjef!jut!psefs!
ejtnjttjoh!uifjs!tvju/
8.Burke Construction Group, Inc. v. Monroe County, CA-M 19-80 -On 7/11/19, Burke
Construction Group sued to challenge the County’s bid protest procedure and decisions
to award contracts for the Marathon Library and Cudjoe Fire Station projects to other
contractors. The County Answered and is engaged in discovery.
2
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3178
S/2/b
9.Maschal et al. v. Monroe County and FKAA, CA K 19-186–Suit against Monroe County
and FKAA by Banks Prevatt and 11 other individualsseeking similar relief to the Delaney
lawsuit, which the County won. On 9/30/21, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’Second
Amended Complaint, but also granted the Plaintiffs’motion to file a supplementary
complaint. On 10/11/21, Plaintiffs filed a different supplementary complaint. On
10/12/21, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Disqualify the trial judge; the Court granted the order
on 10/14/21 and the case was reassignedto Judge Jones. On 10/15/21, Plaintiffs filed
a motion to reconsider the 9/30/21 order granting the County's Motion to Dismiss. The
County and FKAA have filed a Motion to Strike the supplementary complaint and Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court’s 9/30/21 order granting leave to file the supplementary
complaint.A hearing on these motions was held on 1/4/22, at which time the Court took
all three motions under advisement.Bxbjujoh!uif!Dpvsut!svmjoh/!!
10.Monroe County v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 4:19-cv-10049. This case was filed
by Monroe County against opioid manufacturers/marketers and distributors on 4/3/19.
The complaint seeks damages including punitive damages, attorneys’fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. The case is part of multi-district litigation under a judge in Cleveland,
Ohio.The parties are in settlement discussions with the distributor defendantsand
Johnson & Johnson. Threeof the other manufacturer defendants (Purdue Pharma,
Insys and Mallinckrodt) have filed bankruptcy. The County has filed claims in the
bankruptcy cases. Counsel representing local governments and the Attorneys General
for states in the national litigation have developed a formula for distribution of settlement
proceeds. On 9/15/21, the BOCC approveda resolution that expressed approval for
the settlement formula.On 12/8/21, the BOCC approved a settlement agreementwith
three Distributors and one Manufacturer (J&J) under which the County is estimated to
receive approximately $200K/year for 18 years beginning in April 2022if the settlement
is finalized by the court.Gvsuifs!beejujpobm!tfuumfnfou!bhsffnfout!vtjoh!uif!tbnf!
gpsnvmb!pvumjofe!jo!uif!Tfqufncfs!3132!sftpmvujpo!bsf!fyqfdufe/!!Bu!uif!4027!
nffujoh-!uif!Dpvouz!Buupsofzt!Pggjdf!xjmm!tffl!sbujgjdbujpo!up!bqqspwbm!pg!b!
tfuumfnfou!xjui!bopuifs!efgfoebou!nbovgbduvsfs!)Foep*-!boe!bvuipsj{bujpo!gps!uif!
Dpvouz!Buupsofzt!Pggjdf!up!foufs!joup!gvsuifs!tfuumfnfout!xjui!puifs!efgfoebout!
qspwjefe!uif!ufsnt!dpnqmz!xjui!uif!Tfqufncfs!3132!sftpmvujpo/
Bqqfmmbuf!Dbtft!pg!Joufsftu
11.AshBritt, Inc. v. Monroe County & FDOT, Third DCA Case 3D20-553 (lower tribunal:
th
16Jud. Cir. 17-CA-802-K). AshBritt sued the County for breach of contract and for
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The County answered and
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
moved for summary judgment (MSJ).On 2/24/20, Judge Koenig denied the County’s
MSJ.On 3/23/20, the County filed an appeal from that order in the Third DCA. The
case has been fully briefed. Oral argument was held on 3/10/21.Awaiting a decision.
12.William Guy v. Monroe County, 19-AP-3-P. This is a code compliance appeal by
property owners found in violation for unlawful land clearing. Oral argument was held
on 10/29/21. Jo!bo!pqjojpo!jttvfe!30:033-!uif!Dpvsu!!sfwfstfe!boe!sfnboefe!up!uif!
Tqfdjbm!Nbhjtusbuf!up!nblf!mfhbmmz!tvggjdjfou!gjoejoht!pg!gbdu!boe!dpodmvtjpot!pg!
mbx/
3
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3179
S/2/b
13.Monroe County & State of Florida v. Donald Davis (Collins),Third DCA Case No. 3D21-
1078. The County and State were found liable for the inverse condemnation of Davis’
property. The County satisfied the $347,475 judgment on 11/22/19, leaving only the
issue of attorneys’fees and costs to be litigated.On 4/6/21, the trial court entered an
order approving a settlement agreement between Davis, the County, and the State on
the issue of fees and costs, denying Tobin and Mattson’s motion to be added as parties
to pursue an additional award of feesagainst the County and State, and closing the
case. On 5/5/21, Tobin and Mattson filed an appeal of that orderand their brief on
9/21/21. The County and State filed a motion for sanctions on 11/30/21. Answer briefs
were filed on 12/13/21.Uif!sfqmz!csjfg!jt!opx!evf!po!4022033/!!!
14.Galleon Bay Corp. v. Monroe County and State of Florida–CA K 02-595. This takings
case resulted in a final judgment in the amount of $480,511. A Satisfaction of Judgment
was issued. The parties are engaged in discovery on the only remaining issue of
attorneys’fees.
15.KRZ, LLC v. Monroe County,20-AP-41-K. On 12/18/20, the property owners filed a
notice of appeal of the 11/19/20 Final Order of the Special Magistrate that found it in
violation of land clearing and filling standards in the Land Development Code. Oral
argument was held on 9/10/21.In an opinion issued 1/26/22, the court sustained the
decision of the Special Magistrate as to land clearing,andreversed the decision as to
the fill violation.Ofjuifs!qbsuz!bqqfbmfe!uibu!efdjtjpo/!!
16.Atlantic Circle, LLC v. Monroe County Planning Commission, 20-CA-48-P. The
Petitioner is seeking to quash a Planning Commission Resolution that approved with
conditions the request by Randolph Wall for a variance of 5 feet from the required 25-
foot primary front yard setback and a variance of 10 feet from the required 20-foot rear
yard setback. Briefing was completed on8/7/20.In an opinion issued 2/17/22, the court
denied Petitioner’s petition to quash the resolution, finding the Planning Commission
applied the correct law and its decision was supported by competent substantial
evidence.
17.Edwin and Janice Handte v. Monroe County, 20-AP-6-K& 20-AP-8-K/Third DCA Case
No. 21-1527. On 9/25/19,Planning Director denied property owners’application to be
considered exempt from the Land Development Code’s vacation rental special permit
and manager license requirements. On 7/31/19,the Planning Commission denied
property owners’appeal of the Planning Director’s decision. On 7/6/20, a DOAH
hearing officer denied the owners’appeal. Property owners appealed to the Circuit
Court on 7/23/20. On 6/29/21, the Circuit Court issued an appellate opinion affirming
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
in favor of the County.On 7/27/21, the property owners filed a notice of appeal to the
Third DCAand on10/19/21, property ownersfiled their petition for a writ of certiorari.
Po!303033-!uif!Uijse!EDB!jttvfe!bo!pqjojpo!efozjoh!uif!qspqfsuz!pxofst(!
qfujujpo/!!Po!3029033!uif!Qfujujpofst!gjmfe!b!Npujpo!gps!Sfifbsjoh-!Sfifbsjoh!Fo!
Cbod-!ps!Dmbsjgjdbujpo!xjui!uif!Uijse!EDB/!
18.Jonathan Herold v. Monroe County, 21-AP-10-P. On 11/1/21, the property owner filed
a notice of appeal of the Final Order of the Special Magistrate that found him in violation
for building activity without a permit. On 1/18/22, the Court granted the property
owner’smotionfor an extension of time to file his initial brief until 4/7/22.
4
Qbdlfu!Qh/!317:
S/2/b
19.Joeandy Herrera & Jessica Herrera, 21-AP-0007-P. On 9/2/21, the property owners
filed a notice of appeal ofthe Final Order of the Special Magistrate that found them in
violation for building activity without a permit. On 1/27/22, the Court granted the
property owners’until 4/1/22to file their initial brief.
20.Ricky Hill & Jayne Hill v. Monroe County,20-AP-0004-P. The Special Magistrate found
the property owners in violation of the County’sland clearing standards, which the Hills
appealed on 9/22/20. After several extensions, the Hills filed their initial brief on
1/26/22.Uif!Dpvouzt!botxfs!csjfg!jt!evf!po!4038033/
21.Jacquelyn Bello v.Monroe County, 21-AP-0003-P. On 5/5/21, the property owner filed
a notice of appeal of the 4/6/21 Final Order of the Special Magistrate that found her in
violation for converting a utility shed intoaguest house without a permit. Uif!jojujbm!
csjfg!xbt!gjmfe!po!30:033/!!Uif!Dpvouzt!botxfs!csjfg!jtevf!po!4022033/
22.Hayes v. Monroe County, 19-AP-9-K/3D21-0632.On 10/15/19,the property owner filed
a notice of appeal of the 9/30/19 Final Order of the Special Magistrate that found him
in violation of LDC 110-140 and his building permit, which prohibited his expansion,
improvement, or repair of the property’s non-conforming lower enclosure. On 12/21/20,
the Circuit Courtissued an opinion denyingthe property owner’s appealand affirming
the Special Magistrate’s Final Order. The property owner filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Third DCA on 4/24/21. On 1/28/22, the Third DCAgranted the petition
and quashed the decision of the court below affirming the code enforcement order.Po!
3022033!uif!Qfujujpofst!gjmfeb!npujpo!xjui!uif!Djsdvju!Dpvsu!sfrvftujoh!ju!up!foufs!
bo!psefs!wbdbujoh!jut!rvbtife!pqjojpo/
23.Parrot Fish Bay, LLC v. Monroe County, 20-AP-2-P. On 2/27/20, the property owner
filed a notice of appeal of the 1/30/20 Final Order of the Special Magistrate the subject
property in violation of multiple land clearing and environmental violations (LDC 110-
140(a), 118-7, 118-11(a)(b), 118-13, and 122-8(d)(3)). Briefing is complete. Oral
argument was held on 10/15/21. Po!304033!uif!Djsdvju!Dpvsu!jttvfe!bo!pqjojpo
sfwfstjoh!uif!Tqfdjbm!Nbhjtusbuft!gjobm!psefs!boe!sfnboefe!uif!dbtf!cbdl!up!uif!
Tqfdjbm!Nbhjtusbuf/
24.Nicholas Sheckler v. Monroe County,19-AP-7-K/3D21-464.On 7/25/19,the property
owner filed a notice of appeal of the 6/27/19 Final Order of the Special Magistrate that
found his structure to constitute an unsafe structure in multiple ways.On the morning
of11/4/20, prior to the Circuit Court’s issuance or rendition of an appellate opinion, the
full amount of Monroe County’s code enforcement lien was paidand fully satisfied,
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
rendering theappealmoot and subject to dismissal. Later that day, after the County’s
code enforcement lien had been satisfied in full, the Circuit Court released an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the Final Order. On1/8/21, upon Monroe County’s
motion,the Circuit Court issued an order vacating its 11/4/20 opinion and dismissing
the appeal. The property owner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Third DCA
on 2/5/21. Monroe County filed its response on 5/19/21. On 6/22/21,the property owner
requested oral argument, and on 6/28/21 filed a reply.Bxbjujoh!b!efdjtjpo/
5
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3181
S/2/b
25.Steve Stone v. Monroe County, 21-AP-0008-P. On 9/2/21, the property owner filed a
notice of appeal of the Final Order of the Special Magistrate that found him in violation
for building activity without a permit. The initial brief was filed on 1/24/22.Po!3028033-!
uif!Dpvouz!gjmfe!b!npujpo!gps!fyufotjpo!pg!ujnf!voujm!4036033!up!gjmf!bo!botxfs<!uif!
npujpo!sfnbjot!qfoejoh/!
Benjojtusbujwf!Dbtft!pg!Joufsftu
26.FKAA v. FDEP & Florida Power & Light,–DOAH Case Nos. 20-2967 (consolidated with
20-2968, Florida Fishing Guides Ass’n v. FPL). The FKAA filed an administrative
petition challenging DEP’s intent to issue a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to FPL to operate treatment and disposal facilities at Turkey
Point Power Plant. The Countyintervened in support of the FKAA. The final hearing
washeldin January 2021. Both sides filed proposed recommended orders on5/17/21.
Po!3029033-!uif!Benjojtusbujwf!Mbx!Kvehf!foufsfe!b!sfdpnnfoefe!psefs!
sfdpnnfoejoh!uibu!EFQ!hsbou!GQM!uif!sfrvftufe!qfsnju/Uif!qbsujft!ibwf!voujm!
4033033!up!gjmf!fydfqujpot!)pckfdujpot*up!uif!sfdpnnfoefe!Psefs/!!
27.Lower Density for Lower Sugarloaf, LLC, et al.v. Monroe CountyPlanning Commission,
DOAH 21-494/21CA574K. On 2/5/21,a group of property owners neighboring the
proposed affordable-employee housing development filed an appeal to DOAH, seeking
to quash or reverse the Planning Commission’sgranting of a Major Conditional Use
permit to applicant Lower Keys Community Center Corp., and also on 2/5/21 filed a
parallelappeal of Resolution No. P36-20 to the BOCC sitting as an appellate body under
Chapter 139 of the Land Development Code.On 3/22/21,the developers intervened.
The appellants on 4/6/21 filed a motion forthe DOAH ALJ to staythe DOAH proceeding,
which theDOAH ALJ denied on 4/26/21.Afterargument on 7/13/21, the ALJissued a
final order on 7/22/21, upholding the Planning Commission’sdecision to approve the
project’smajor conditional use permit.On 8/23/21, the property owners filed a petition
for writ of certiorari in Circuit Court.Respondent Lower Keys Community Center filed
its response on 9/24/21. Monroe County filed its response on 9/29/21. On 12/22/21, the
parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to allow the property owners an
additional 45 days’time to file a Reply, in order to afford the developer and the property
owners extended time to discuss the possibility of reaching a settlement with
Respondent Lower Keys Community Center.Po!3033033!uif!qbsujft!gjmfe!bKpjou!
Npujpo!gps!Fyufotjpo!pg!ujnf!jo!psefs!up!bggpse!uif!efwfmpqfs!boe!qspqfsuz!pxofst!
beejujpobm!ujnf!up!gvsuifs!fyqmpsf!tfuumfnfou!pqujpot!xjui!Sftqpoefou!Mpxfs!
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
Lfzt!Dpnnvojuz!Dfoufs/
28.Diane Beruldsen, et alv. Monroe County, DOAH 21-1657GM. Administrative petition
challenging Ordinance 05-2021, amending Comp Plan to authorize 300 early
evacuation ROGOs that are to be used as exchange for existing affordable ROGOswas
filed on 5/21/21. The reclaimed ROGOs would be used for administrative relief.The
challenge is being held in abeyanceuntil the related Cities’challengeis resolved by the
Third District in Case No. 3D20-1921,Mattino et al. v. City of Marathon, et al. Oral
argument in the Cities’case was held on10/19/21.Awaiting a decision of the Third DCA
in Mattinocase.Po!402033-!uif!BMKfoufsfe!boe!psefs!dpoujovjohup!ipme!uif!
Dpvouzt!dbtf!jo!bcfzbodf!voujm!803:033/
6
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3182
S/2/b
29.Elk Investments of Miami v. Monroe County Planning Department.On 7/6/21, the
property owner filed an appeal to the Planning Commission of the Department’s6/14/21
letter of understanding regarding the proposed development of a residential dwelling
unit at its vacant property in the URM Land Use District in Key Largo, FL (Parcel ID
00489136-018717). The Department determined that the property does not meet the
definition of “lot”and does not meet the requirements of the URM Land Use District in
order to allow the development of a residential dwelling unit. The owner is arguing that
the decision is confiscatory. The Planning Commission upheld the Department’s
decision on 10/27/21. The owner filed an appeal on or about 12/14/21 of the Planning
Commission’s decision to DOAH(DOAH Case No. 21-003764).Npospf!Dpvouzt
Botxfs!Csjfg!xbt!gjmfe!po!302033<!Bqqfmmbout!Sfqmz!Csjfgxbt!gjmfe!po!305033/!!
Bxbjujoh!tdifevmjoh!pg!psbm!bshvnfou/
30.6-7-8 US 1, LLC v. Monroe County Planning Department.On 5/7/21, the property owner
filed an appeal to the Planning Commission of the Department’s 4/7/21 letter of
understanding regarding the attempted use of storage/shipping containers at its Key
Largo property in the SC land use district (Property Identification No. 00149430-
000000). The Department determined that the storage/shipping containers used for
commercial storage at the property were not subject to the property owner’s conditional
use approval or building permit for the parcel, are structures that require a permitand
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, LDC, Chapter 6 of the County Code, the
Florida Building Code, local and FEMA flood regulations, andconstitutenon-residential
floor area as defined in the LDC and are subject to NROGO.The owner is disputing
the Department’sanalysis and conclusions.Uif!bqqfbm!xbt!opujdfe!boe!tfu!up!
qspdffe!cfgpsf!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpo!bu!jut!Gfcsvbsz!nffujoh-!cvu!xbt!
dpoujovfe!up!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpot!Bqsjm!nffujoh!bu!uif!sfrvftu!pg!dpvotfm!
gps!uif!qspqfsuz!pxofs/
31.Largo Management Co., Inc. v. Monroe County Planning Commission/On 10/6/21, the
property owner filed an appeal to the Planning Commission of the Department’s 9/14/21
letter of understanding regarding the applicant’s proposal to increase the recognized
seating and seating capacity attwo structures (a restaurant and a bar) situatedonaSC
land use district-zoned property in Key Largo (Property IDNo. 00504080-000000).Uif!
bqqfbm!jt!ufoubujwfmz!tdifevmfe!gps!ifbsjoh!bu!uif!Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpot!nffujoh!
jo!Nbsdi/
32.WAYHI LLC v. Monroe County Planning Department/On 12/21/21, the property owner
filed an appeal to the Planning Commission of the Department’sdecision to deny the
property owner’sdevelopment application to deposit fill and build aconcrete retaining
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
wall and a concrete grade beamat its Tavernier propertyon the basisthat the shoreline
of the subject property (Property IDNo. 00446340-000000) has been identified
as/determined to be a turtle nesting beachand asthe proposed construction does not
meet applicable setback(s). Uif!bqqfbmjt!ufoubujwfmz!tdifevmfe!gps!ifbsjoh!bu!uif!
Qmboojoh!Dpnnjttjpot!Kvof!nffujoh/
7
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3183
S/2/b
Wbdbujpo!Sfoubm!Dbtft
33.Thurmond Street Partners, LLC v. Monroe County, Florida, 18AP10-K & 18AP11K; Third
DCA Case 3D19-2367. Appeal of 2018 finding by Code Compliance Special Magistrate
thatThurmond Street Partnersvacation wedding use violated Section 130-94 of the
Code. The property owner appealed to the Circuit Court, which reversed the Special
Magistrate’s decision on 11/6/19; which the County appealed to the Third DCA on
12/6/19. The Third DCA stayed the caseat the request of the parties. On 12/15/20, the
propertyowner and County staff held pre-application conferences.Letters of
Understanding resulting from the parties’pre-application conferences were issued on
2/18/21. The property owner filed its tier amendment application on 3/15/21.On
6/24/21,the Third DCA extended its stay to 1/17/22 at the request of the parties.On
9/29/21,the Planning Commission voted to recommendthat the BOCC denythe
property owner’s application to amend its tier designation. The property owner
subsequentlyrequested its follow-ontier amendment BOCC public hearing itemto be
tabled.Uif!qspqfsuz!pxofs!opx!ibt!voujm!5033033up!gjmf!sf{pojoh!boe!gvuvsf!mboe!
vtf!nbq!dibohf!bqqmjdbujpot.
34.Buttonwood Key Largo v. Monroe County,21-CA-0068-P. On 2/16/21, Buttonwood filed
a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration of whether
the six-room former hotel is entitled to vacation rental permit exemptions pursuant to
LDC Section 134-1(b)(1) (despite the fact that Buttonwood’s applications for such
exemptions were denied on 12/18/20, and the denials were not appealed), and an
injunction against code enforcement.The County filed its answer on 4/23/21, and has
since served discovery requests. Adeposition of Mayte Santamaria was held on
12/16/21. All discovery propounded by Buttonwood was responded to on 12/17/21.Uif!
Dpvouz!boujdjqbuft!gjmjoh!b!npujpo!gps!tvnnbsz!kvehnfou!xjuijo!uif!ofyu!npoui/
35.Coral Hammock Rental, et al. v. Monroe County,20-AP-11-K. On 10/29/20, the Special
Magistrate heard 47 vacation rental violation cases arising from Coral Hammock, found
45 properties in violation, and assessed fines of $224,329, plus costs.Twenty-Six of
the 45 property owners found in violation appealed the final order to the Circuit
Court.The appealswereconsolidated forpurposes of briefing common issues of
law/Appellants filed their brief on 6/4/21.The Countyfiled its brief on10/22/21.
Appellants’reply brief was filed on 1/28/22.Awaiting setting of oral argument.
Dpotujuvujpobm!Pggjdfs!Dbtft
36.League of Women Voters of FLv. Sec'y of StateLee,Joyce Griffin, et al,4:21-cv-00186,
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
USDC/NDFL.Claims for injunctive and declaratory reliefagainst Secretary of State,
the FL AG,and the Supervisors of Election for all 67 counties, challenging SB 90, the
recently enacted elections legislation.Griffin and other SOEs retained outside counsel.
The County Attorney’s Office isassisting in the defense. q1Theothercasesshown
belowraise similar challenges to SB 90.Supervisor Griffin has also been specifically
named as a defendant in those cases.All cases wereconsolidatedand tried earlier
ui
this year. Uif!qbsujft!nvtu!tvcnju!qptu!usjbm!csjfgt!uif!xffl!pg!Nbsdi!5-!xjui!uif!
Dpvsut!kvehnfou!up!cf!foufsfe!tppo!uifsfbgufs/
8
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3184
S/2/b
37.NAACPof FLv. Sec'y of StateLee,Joyce Griffin, et al, 4:21-cv-00187,USDC/NDFL.
Claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Secretary of State and the
Supervisor of Elections for all 67 counties, challenging SB90, the recently enacted
elections legislation and raising some additional constitutionalclaims. This case has
been consolidated with the above League of Women Voters case and is being handled
by the same outside counsel. The County Attorney’s Office continuesto provide
assistance in the defense.Usjbm!ibt!dpodmvefe<!bxbjujoh!Dpvsut!kvehnfou.
38.Florida RisingTogether, v. Sec'y of StateLee, Joyce Griffin, et al, 4:21-cv-201,
USDC/NDFL.Claim for injunctiveand declaratory relief against SecretaryLeeandthe
Supervisor of Elections for all 67 counties,also challengingSB90 and asking to impose
a“pre-clearance”requirement on defendants which would require all changes in
election laws and procedures to be submitted to the U.S. Dept.of Justice for pre-
approval. This case was also consolidated with the above League of Women Voters
case and is being handled by the same outside counsel, with the County Attorney’s
office providing assistance. Usjbm!ibt!dpodmvefe<!bxbjujoh!Dpvsut!kvehnfou/.
Upsu!boe0ps!Fnqmpznfou!Mbx!Dbtft
39.The County Attorney’s Office is currently representing the County in the following other
personal injury,property damage and employment law cases:
Acevedo v. Monroe County, S.D. Fla. 4:21-cv-10041-JEMEmployment
Katzenstein v. Monroe County, 20-CA-177-PPersonal Injury
Solomon v. Monroe County et al., 20-CA-206-MPersonal Injury
Barter v. Monroe County, 21-CA-418-KPersonal Injury
Goodmanv. Monroe County, S.D. Fla. 4:21-cv-10099-DPGEmployment
Francisco Salazar v. FDOT and Monroe County, 21-CA-715-KPersonal injury
Campion v. Key West HMA and Lower Florida Keys Hospital
District (Monroe County erroneously served), 22-CA-70-KPersonal injury
Alfonso v. Monroe County, 22-CA-108-KPersonal injury
Puifs!Nbuufst!pg!Joufsftu
40.Dpef!Dpmmfdujpot.During February 2022, staff collected $96,303.03in code
compliance fines and costs. Cumulatively throughthe first five months of FY22, staff
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
has collected $552,348.45in fines and costs, including after-the-fact fees.
41.Wbdbujpo!Sfoubm!Qsptfdvujpot/No vacation rental violations were presented to the
Special Magistrate at the 2/24/22 hearing.
42.At the February general meeting, Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Hall was elected
Vice President of the Monroe County Bar Association.
9
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3185
S/2/b
Sjtl!Nbobhfnfou
43.Risk Management activity in February 2022 was as shown below. Also see the
attached report from EBIX showing collection and review of insurance policies
conducted by Risk for County vendors.
Dmbjnt;
County Property (CP)4
Auto Physical (AP)4
General Liability (GL)0
Auto Liability (AL)1
Gmppe!qpmjdz!sfofxbmt;4!qpmjdjft
Jotvsbodf!Qpmjdz!sfofxbmt;1qpmjdjft
Wfijdmf0Frvjqnfou!beejujpo!boe!efmfujpo;1!wfijdmft0frvjqnfou!beefe!ps!
efmfufe
Pqfo!Qfoejoh!Sjtl!dmbjnt!pwfs!qbtu!6!zfbst!
)jodmvejoh!dmbjnt!cfjoh!npojupsfe!boe0ps!
iboemfe!cz!Sjtl!Nbobhfnfou!boe!dmbjnt!cfjoh!
mjujhbufe!cz!Npospf!Dpvouz!Buupsofz(t!Pggjdf*;
AP claims
62
CP claims
90
AL claims8
GL claims58
Mbshf!Epmmbs!Bnpvou!Dmbjnt;
Current GL above $10,0003
Current AL above $3,0001
Past AP and CP above $3,000 going back 5 25
years
Bhfoeb!Jufnt!Sfwjfxfe!qbtu!npoui99
Buubdinfou;!DBZ!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
10
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3186
S/2/b
Qvcmjd!Sfdpset
44.The County Attorney’s Office serves as the coordinator of public records requests for
the County.During the month of February2022, the office processed a total of57
requests and assisted other departments with fulfilling an additional 229requests for a
total of 286public records requests.Please see below for further details:
11
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3187
Mar-220.000.00
0.00
Apr-220.000.00
0.00
May-220.000.00
0.00
Jun-220.000.00
0.00
Jul-220.000.00
0.00
Aug-220.000.00
0.00
Sep-220.000.00
0.00
3132.3133!UPUBMT4::-784/2283-396/45582-:69/5691-4:1/111/11663-459/56
Oct-20110,118.188,468.94118,587.1212,000.000.00130,587.12
Nov-20274,496.9618,626.30293,123.2612,049.000.00305,172.26
Dec-20371,537.4421,711.75393,249.1924,465.500.00417,714.69
Jan-2140,231.446,155.6246,387.0617,477.000.0063,864.06
Feb-2182,488.847,119.6189,608.4516,802.400.00106,410.85
Mar-21153,210.1411,740.03164,950.1713,289.330.00178,239.50
Apr-2154,765.1410,410.6765,175.8122,361.000.0087,536.81
May-21133,087.5013,693.82146,781.3238,452.500.00185,233.82
Jun-21108,284.3811,984.20120,268.5814,324.800.00134,593.38
Jul-2148,132.9112,330.9960,463.9016,705.000.0077,168.90
Aug-2195,416.4717,905.63113,322.1016,500.000.00129,822.10
Sep-21834,980.9134,127.76869,108.6717,715.000.00886,823.67
3131.3132!UPUBMT3-417-861/42285-386/433-592-136/74333-252/641/113-814-278/27
Oct-19214,502.0023,106.65237,608.6514,184.240.00251,792.89
Nov-19106,074.6913,167.07119,241.7638,919.000.00158,160.76
Dec-1993,199.3728,049.18121,248.5527,080.000.00148,328.55
Jan-2079,016.849,927.4088,944.2426,054.500.00114,998.74
Feb-20105,812.5012,011.18117,823.6813,738.000.00131,561.68
Mar-2097,165.305,403.80102,569.105,000.000.00107,569.10
Apr-2060,448.5114,526.0974,974.607,000.000.0081,974.60
May-2029,800.002,856.0732,656.073,834.000.0036,490.07
Jun-2050,271.0710,607.6060,878.6720,400.000.0081,278.67
Jul-2062,323.665,395.0267,718.6810,612.420.0078,331.10
Aug-20124,395.2512,106.57136,501.8218,872.500.00155,374.32
Sep-20155,989.8313,770.09169,759.928,368.520.00178,128.44
312:.3131!UPUBMT2-289-:::/13261-:37/832-43:-:36/852:5-174/291/112-634-:99/:3
Oct-18253,116.8018,009.846,778.000.00
271,126.64277,904.64
Nov-18125,598.9610,889.5324,794.500.00
136,488.49161,282.99
Dec-1888,200.009,355.326,700.000.00
97,555.32104,255.32
Jan-1969,500.006,586.4311,320.000.00
76,086.4387,406.43
Feb-19163,410.9013,655.94177,066.8413,031.500.00190,098.34
Mar-19123,729.5311,289.45135,018.9828,210.000.00163,228.98
Apr-19117,602.0710,149.71127,751.7830,490.000.00158,241.78
May-19226,445.8021,179.45247,625.2552,601.000.00300,226.25
Jun-19170,542.0514,618.43185,160.4818,602.000.00203,762.48
Jul-1951,927.5122,316.5074,244.0142,935.940.00117,179.95
Aug-19139,884.8222,736.88162,621.7016,000.000.00178,621.70
Sep-19142,855.1221,742.25164,597.3718,699.760.00183,297.13
3129.312:!UPUBMT2-783-924/67293-63:/842-966-454/3:381-273/811/113-236-616/::
Sep-18194,858.9211,751.0910,500.000.00
206,610.01217,110.01
3128.3129!UPUBMT2-943-738/:2233-484/:22-:66-112/9396-724/111/113-151-725/93
217,650.7913,725.864,400.00
Oct-16231,376.650.00235,776.65
227,785.2019,645.285,000.00
Nov-16247,430.480.00252,430.48
265,695.0017,792.519,614.00
Dec-16283,487.510.00293,101.51
20,211.004,373.921,000.00
Jan-1724,584.920.0025,584.92
75,765.378,548.480.00
Feb-1784,313.850.0084,313.85
148,287.8612,850.645,430.00
Mar-17161,138.500.00166,568.50
44,886.868,739.366,500.00
Apr-1753,626.220.0060,126.22
99,402.6012,369.675,850.00
May-17111,772.270.00117,622.27
78,697.009,474.698,402.00
Jun-1788,171.690.0096,573.69
89,965.0012,458.672,000.00
Jul-17102,423.670.00104,423.67
216,371.9310,646.725,781.00
Aug-17227,018.650.00232,799.65
Sep-170.000.000.000.000.000.00
3127.3128!Upubmt2-595-829/72241-736/912-726-455/5264-:88/111/112-77:-432/52
61,426.7210,511.577,750.00
Oct-1571,938.290.0079,688.29
48,354.3011,793.364,973.00
Nov-1560,147.660.0065,120.66
62,632.506,632.922,000.00
Dec-1569,265.420.0071,265.42
107,268.819,832.653,950.00
Jan-16117,101.460.00121,051.46
51,280.564,053.385,700.00
Feb-1655,333.940.0061,033.94
90,377.889,444.403,500.00
Mar-1699,822.280.00103,322.28
195,134.499,909.3711,950.00
Apr-16205,043.860.00216,993.86
116,788.8910,038.535,750.00
May-16126,827.420.00132,577.42
76,766.1615,398.335,450.00
Jun-1692,164.490.0097,614.49
55,079.027,142.743,000.00
Jul-1662,221.760.0065,221.76
56,431.528,022.332,255.00
Aug-1664,453.850.0066,708.85
76,726.419,679.078,400.00
Sep-1686,405.480.0094,805.48
3126.3127!Upubmt::9-378/37223-569/762-221-836/:275-789/111/112-286-514/:2
Oct-1454,290.8310,089.6164,380.442,000.000.0066,380.44
Nov-146,937.502,320.919,258.415,293.000.0014,551.41
Dec-1432,966.675,214.2038,180.878,604.000.0046,784.87
Jan-153,591.671,707.545,299.214,500.000.009,799.21
Feb-1557,802.619,142.2466,944.855,537.400.0072,482.25
Mar-1568,916.676,091.9775,008.648,060.000.0083,068.64
Apr-1550,862.503,932.0554,794.558,665.000.0063,459.55
May-1538,366.665,229.3643,596.029,666.300.0053,262.32
Jun-1525,259.587,955.0833,214.664,830.000.0038,044.66
Jul-1568,735.009,488.7978,223.7910,450.000.0088,673.79
Aug-1527,778.666,091.4333,870.098,707.100.0042,577.19
Sep-1544,422.725,214.0449,636.769,125.000.0058,761.76
3125.3126!Upubmt58:-:42/1883-588/33663-519/3:96-548/911/11748-957/1:
Oct-1335,349.963,466.0338,815.997,525.000.0046,340.99
Nov-1330,809.254,138.0934,947.343,250.000.0038,197.34
Dec-1327,691.634,865.4732,557.106,150.000.0038,707.10
Jan-1441,804.651,752.2143,556.863,000.000.0046,556.86
Feb-1451,544.585,485.3457,029.924,000.000.0061,029.92
Mar-1428,856.455,053.7133,910.164,000.000.0037,910.16
Apr-1422,908.665,418.3928,327.058,500.000.0036,827.05
May-148,691.993,152.1011,844.0910,558.000.0022,402.09
1402:03125!CPDD!BEPQUFE!QPMJDZ!UP!QSPDFFE!XJUI!DPMMFDUJPOT!UISPVHI!MFHBM!BDUJPO!)SFTP!168.3125*
Jun-1479,184.0014,272.7293,456.727,000.000.00100,456.72
May-1332,386.695,795.0038,181.694,000.00450.0042,631.69
Jun-1314,466.642,912.6917,379.333,000.00360.0020,739.33
Jul-1325,166.662,245.5427,412.206,313.6090.0033,815.80
Aug-1332,566.641,450.5634,017.205,800.000.0039,817.20
Sep-1351,324.963,330.8054,655.763,750.000.0058,405.76
3123.3124!Upubmt484-452/:665-226/83538-568/7863-9:4/715-791/11596-142/38
Oct-1164,020.506,892.2070,912.703,500.002,430.0076,842.70
Nov-118,800.003,386.3612,186.362,000.001,170.0015,356.36
Dec-113,550.002,635.706,185.702,500.001,800.0010,485.70
Jan-1221,300.004,725.4126,025.413,000.001,620.0030,645.41
Feb-1228,546.663,695.3832,242.041,800.001,440.0035,482.04
Mar-1231,925.005,516.9937,441.993,500.001,620.0042,561.99
Apr-1236,696.662,693.0839,389.744,000.001,800.0045,189.74
May-1265,617.336,176.1171,793.444,060.001,530.0077,383.44
Jun-125,217.00667.395,884.392,000.00810.008,694.39
Jul-1228,433.326,782.4535,215.771,590.001,080.0037,885.77
Aug-127,917.309,126.2017,043.504,745.00630.0022,418.50
Sep-1215,350.00600.7915,950.792,000.00720.0018,670.79
3122.3123!Upubmt428-484/8863-9:9/17481-382/9445-7:6/1127-761/11532-727/94
Oct-1028,433.005,430.2133,863.210.000.0033,863.21
Nov-1028,234.784,972.5133,207.291,000.002,070.0036,277.29
Dec-1036,730.683,159.6339,890.319,800.002,160.0051,850.31
Jan-1142,444.085,188.7947,632.875,405.001,980.0055,017.87
Feb-1126,727.005,126.6331,853.633,220.002,060.0037,133.63
Mar-1155,517.569,022.7864,540.3414,283.003,240.0082,063.34
Apr-1120,201.005,076.1125,277.111,500.002,340.0029,117.11
May-1119,470.505,792.9125,263.412,500.003,960.0031,723.41
Jun-1119,154.966,489.4625,644.423,000.002,880.0031,524.42
Jul-1117,625.002,691.8220,316.821,500.001,710.0023,526.82
Aug-1158,432.005,282.7863,714.783,000.003,330.0070,044.78
Sep-1120,700.004,253.4624,953.462,000.002,340.0029,293.46
3121.3122!Upubmt484-781/6773-598/1:547-268/7658-319/1139-181/11622-546/76
Oct-092,605.252,197.764,803.010.001,950.006,753.01
Nov-0924,337.982,518.1126,856.090.001,620.0028,476.09
Dec-0917,897.582,459.7620,357.340.002,320.0022,677.34
Jan-1024,351.331,929.5126,280.840.001,800.0028,080.84
Feb-101,191.331,368.202,559.530.001,260.003,819.53
Mar-105,621.833,705.749,327.57500.002,760.0012,587.57
Apr-104,500.008,299.6112,799.611,000.002,950.0016,749.61
May-1029,587.003,703.3433,290.342,000.002,820.0038,110.34
Jun-1016,608.365,017.0121,625.3710,070.001,890.0033,585.37
Jul-105,583.004,096.959,679.952,500.001,350.0013,529.95
Aug-1015,866.005,164.6921,030.6913,068.802,250.0036,349.49
Sep-1035,556.502,375.0737,931.570.000.0037,931.57
311:.3121!Upubmt294-817/2753-946/86337-652/:23:-249/9133-:81/11389-761/82
Oct-088,226.62893.859,120.470.002,610.0011,730.47
Nov-084,047.50153.224,200.720.002,340.006,540.72
Dec-086,768.752,091.658,860.400.002,700.0011,560.40
Jan-091,000.00667.861,667.860.002,770.004,437.86
Feb-0931,413.261,493.7132,906.970.002,070.0034,976.97
Mar-0921,275.001,082.5122,357.510.002,770.0025,127.51
Feb-089,000.00300.009,300.000.002,250.0011,550.00
Mar-0833,105.50400.0033,505.500.002,880.0036,385.50
Apr-083,118.50738.533,857.030.003,510.007,367.03
May-088,425.00526.048,951.040.003,140.0012,091.04
Jun-0814,100.00170.7114,270.710.003,960.0018,230.71
Jul-081,350.00135.021,485.020.002,230.003,715.02
Aug-088,000.00600.008,600.000.002,980.0011,580.00
Sep-086,212.50200.836,413.330.002,250.008,663.33
3118.3119!Upubmt211-7::/466-125/74216-824/:91/113:-2:1/11245-:14/:9
Oct-060.000.000.000.000.000.00
Nov-060.000.000.000.000.000.00
Dec-060.000.000.000.000.000.00
Jan-0710,918.001,500.0012,418.000.000.0012,418.00
Feb-071,500.001,823.553,323.550.000.003,323.55
Mar-072,150.001,001.953,151.950.000.003,151.95
Apr-074,017.70902.704,920.400.000.004,920.40
May-0721,060.00900.0021,960.000.000.0021,960.00
Jun-071,250.003,585.004,835.000.000.004,835.00
Jul-078,399.981,207.509,607.480.000.009,607.48
Aug-077,640.001,600.009,240.000.000.009,240.00
Sep-0712,157.001,000.0013,157.000.000.0013,157.00
7:-1:3/7924-631/8193-724/491/111/1193-724/49
S/2/d
Npospf!Dpvouz!Gmpsjeb!Nbobhfnfou!Sfqpsut
Npoui!Foe!Qsphsbn!Tvnnbsz
Month Ending: February 2022
Active Insureds333
Active Insureds With Evidence of Coverage318
Active Insureds With Current Coverage256
Active Insureds With No Coverage11
Wpmvnf!Qfs!
Bdujwf!Jotvsfe
303133ZUE
Number of Document Pages Processed 53295619.29
Number of Phone Calls660.16
Number of Notices Sent1142744.67
Buubdinfou;!Sjtl!sfqpsu!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
303133ZUE
Number of Monroe County Florida Website 52122
Logins
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3192
S/2/d
Top 5 Deficiencies
1Expired Policy117
2 Owned, Scheduled, Hired, & Non-Owned 56
Autos are not properly identified.
3 Insurance Carrier name not found in A.M. 29
Best Rating Guide:
4 Insurance Carrier does not meet the 22
required A.M. Best rating of
5 Missing Workers' Comp Insurance for the 17
following state:
** DOES NOT include Expiring or ANY Minor Deficiencies
Buubdinfou;!Sjtl!sfqpsu!!)Dpvouz!Buupsofz!Sfqpsu!Nbsdi!3133*
Qbdlfu!Qh/!3193