|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 261278 |
|
|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 261278 |
Printable PDF Format
|
| File Number: 261278 | File Type: Ordinance | Status: Second Reading | ||||||||
| Version: 0 | Reference: | Control: County Commission | ||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Requester: NONE | Cost: | Final Action: | ||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Sunset Provision: No | Effective Date: | Expiration Date: | ||||||||
| Registered Lobbyist: | None Listed |
Legislative History |
|||||||
| Acting Body | Date | Agenda Item | Action | Sent To | Due Date | Returned | Pass/Fail |
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 10/20/2026 | 7A | Deferred | 1/20/2027 | |||
| |
|||||||
| Office of the Chairperson | 10/14/2026 | Deferrals | |||||
| REPORT: | Commissioner Lopez is requesting deferral to the first Board of County Commissioners meeting in January 2027. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Recreation, Tourism, and Resiliency Committee | 7/14/2026 | 1G1 Substitute | Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation following a public hearing | ||||
| REPORT: | ACA Spencer read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Vice Chairwoman Steinberg opened the public hearing, and the following individuals appeared before the Committee: ? Ms. Danielle Chandler, 2520 Coral Way, Miami, FL, spoke in opposition of the item as written and urged the Committee to reject or return it for revision. She stated that she lived aboard a sailboat lawfully anchored in Biscayne Bay under a valid Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) long-term anchoring permit for more than 10 years until the property was sold at the end of May and the new owners declined to continue renting slips, and that she had been at anchor while actively searching for a dock. Ms. Chandler advised that her vessel was too large for Miami’s mooring field and that area marinas were full or unaffordable. She stressed that the proposed ordinance’s 30-day/six-month cap on overnight anchoring provided no mechanism to remain lawfully at anchor and therefore amounted to a ban rather than a management tool, and suggested a more reasonable rule would require relocating only for a short period. Ms. Chandler was invited by Vice Chairwoman Steinberg to submit her written remarks to the Committee and the Clerk of the Board. ? Captain Bert Korpela, owner, Atlantis Marine Towing and Salvage, 3400 Pan American Drive, Miami, FL, indicated that his family had operated in Coconut Grove since 1957 and that the true issue were derelict vessels moved from one municipality to another rather than liveaboards who maintained their boats. He recommended that derelict vessels be removed through salvage companies such as his, which could offset removal costs through scrap and materials rather than leaving the expense to municipalities. He concluded that the anchoring program needed to be revamped. ? Mr. Zakary Wronka, 3400 Pan American Drive, Miami, FL, noted that the challenges facing the boating community extended beyond anchoring. They included declining yacht values, rising labor and insurance costs, and competition from lower-cost markets. He also cautioned that additional regulation could render the local industry non-competitive. ? Mr. Michael Maynard, 3400 Pan American Drive, Miami, FL, stated that the County should first address actual derelict vessels and questioned the basis for the 30-day limit. He described the mutual-aid network among liveaboards and emphasized that living on a boat was his chosen way of life. ? Mr. David Furor, 2700SW 29th Court, Miami, FL, mentioned that he operated a non-profit organization that offered engineless sailing tours of Biscayne Bay using 18-foot vessels that marinas considered too small to accommodate. He stated the ordinance would negatively affect his livelihood and noted the environmental benefits of his engineless, trash-removing operation. ? Mr. Colby Uva 690 SW 1st Court, Miami, FL, noted he owned a vessel in the anchorage for more than five (5) years. He supported removing derelict boats but urged the Committee to protect local residents and to consider grandfathering in local vessels and businesses that operated in the area for generations. He also pointed out there were issues with limited and poorly maintained marinas and mooring capacity. ? Mayor Rachel Streitfeld, City of North Bay Village (North Bay Village), 1455 North Treasure Drive, North Bay Village, FL, remarked that the proposed ordinance was not about derelict vessels or punishing taxpaying boaters but a limited exception to state preemption which allowed enforcement of overnight anchoring outside a regulated mooring field. She stated that North Bay Village, the City of Miami Beach (Miami Beach), and the City of Miami (Miami) had passed such an ordinance but needed the County’s partnership to enforce the ordinance and address “squatter vessels” in unregulated waters. ? Mayor Seth Salver, Mayor, Village of Bal Harbour (Bal Harbour), 655 96th Street, Bal Harbour, FL, emphasized the importance of the County adopting a countywide ordinance to avoid a patchwork of regulation. He also thanked the Committee for supporting the sargassum hot spot ordinance and noted the significant impact of sargassum on Bal Harbour’s beaches and tourism. ? A speaker only identified as Justin, no address given, stated that he lived on a boat near the Dinner Key Marina and that enforcement had pushed boaters into Coconut Grove, the last area from which he could lawfully access the water. He commented that the item would make it effectively impossible for him to live and work in the County and urged the Committee not to let the measure pass. Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Vice Chairwoman Steinberg closed the public hearing. Vice Chairwoman Steinberg recognized Commissioner Lopez, the item’s sponsor, to begin the discussion. Commissioner Lopez recalled that when she was a member of the Florida House of Representatives, the State of Florida had preempted local governments from regulating anchoring and liveaboards. She then carried House Bill (HB) 481, which authorized local governments to adopt ordinances addressing overnight anchoring. She pointed out that Miami and Miami Beach had already adopted ordinances precluding overnight anchoring for more than 30 days in any six-month period. Commissioner Lopez explained that the proposed County ordinance would simply align with state statute and cover the entire County to avoid a patchwork of regulation. At Commissioner Lopez’s invitation, Miami Beach Commissioner David Suarez gave a PowerPoint presentation on the circumstances that led the State Legislature to create the exception. It detailed the proliferation of derelict vessels in Biscayne Bay which numbered over 160 by 2023, sewage and fuel discharges, environmental impacts, seagrass damage from anchor drag, illegal short-term vessel rentals on public waterways, and navigational hazards from sunken and unlit vessels. Commissioner Regalado stated that she voted no on first reading for the item and remained unsupportive of the item. She asked that her district, which included Coconut Grove, be exempted because the County should not bear the enforcement costs for municipalities that were not enforcing their ordinances, specifically Miami. She continued that residents in her district had nowhere to dock and were on marina waiting lists for 20 to 25 years. She characterized the ordinance as a prohibition that excluded liveaboards and maintained that the environmental harms depicted were already actionable through DERM. She announced she would not support the item at the Board but was willing to devise a solution with municipalities, including additional moorings or a fee structure to fund more marine patrols to enforce the law. Commissioner Bastien concurred with some of Commissioner Regalado’s points and voiced her concerns that the item could render residents homeless. She inquired how many residents lived aboard their vessels and what would happen to them and asked whether Commissioner Lopez would work with the administration to support affected residents if the item moved forward. Commissioner Lopez responded that she did not have the number of people who lived on vessels but noted they would be moved to a mooring field or marina. She stressed that Miami never contacted her for enforcement assistance and that the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office had enforcement capabilities on the County’s waters. She explained the proposed ordinance gave municipalities the ability to enforce the law. Vice Chairwoman Steinberg clarified that state law allowed certain sized counties and municipalities to enforce the law. She also said that municipalities were attempting to complement their laws with the County’s, and the item would create uniformity throughout the County. Mr. Ricisak confirmed that discharges of sewage and oil were illegal and enforceable when documented. He explained that violations frequently occurred at night and were difficult to observe, and that vessels which never moved from their anchorage nonetheless had to dispose of waste. He also noted that there were publicly accessible sewage pump outs at marinas to dispose of sewage waste. He stated that a complete picture of the ordinance’s public-safety and environmental rationale had not yet been presented and offered to meet with the RTRC members. Ms. Parra clarified that DERM had jurisdiction over many of the environmental hazards described but not over every aspect of derelict and at-risk vessels. The legislation would help DERM better address violators of the law rather than target the residents who had voiced their concerns about the item at today’s meeting. Commissioner Regalado repeated her concerns about the item; she opined it did not only address derelict vessels but was instead a blanket prohibition that excluded residents and would evict them from their homes, which happened to be vessels. She emphasized that discussion with public outreach was needed to properly address residents who violated the laws and where residents could live if they were forced out of their vessels considering the limited number of moorings. Commissioner Regalado announced her willingness to meet with DERM and Commissioner Lopez. Vice Chairwoman Steinberg commented that she did not view the ordinance as a blanket prohibition, explaining that residents could continue to live aboard but could not anchor indefinitely in any single location. Commissioner Lopez concurred with her. ACA Wahl confirmed that the state preempted municipalities from passing legislation affecting liveaboards and the carve-out to the rule was being discussed in today’s meeting. Commissioner McGhee asked the administration whether the ordinance could increase homelessness in the County. Mr. Hudtwalcker advised that it would be speculative to answer without more information. With no information on the number of municipalities enforcing the exception, Commissioner McGhee expressed concern about the perception of directing the County’s enforcement power against individuals who chose to live aboard vessels. He said he needed more information before he could be comfortable with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hudtwalcker said he would provide Commissioner McGhee with the requested information on how many municipalities enforced the exception. Commissioner Lopez reiterated that the item would align with state legislation as other counties had done. She announced her intent to meet with Miami officials about enforcement which they had to do. In response to Commissioner Bastien’s voiced concerns about the liveaboards who faced homelessness if the item passed, Commissioner Lopez pledged to work with the administration, Miami and DERM to determine the number of residents living aboard vessels who never move them, and to answer the Committee members’ questions. Mr. Hudtwalcker confirmed that the administration would work with the commissioners, through Ms. Parra, to bring the requested information ahead of the full Board. Commissioner McGhee indicated his support for the item but cautioned on how the public would perceive the legislation. Commissioner Regalado expressed concern that the requested information might not be received before the Board’s upcoming Budget Hearings and suggested deferring the item, which would allow more information to be prepared. Commissioner Lopez agreed and recommended the item be presented to the Board in October 2026. She added that the impact of similar ordinances from Broward and Monroe counties had on the County’s waters should be studied. Following further discussion among the Committee members, Commissioner Lopez, and ACA Wahl about procedures of when to present the item, Commissioner McGhee moved that the foregoing proposed ordinance be forwarded to the Board with a request that it be placed on the agenda of the October 20, 2026 Board meeting. Commissioner Regalado remained unsupportive of the item because she preferred it remain in Committee instead of being forwarded to the October Board meeting. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as presented. Later in the meeting, Commissioner Regalado requested that DERM provide information on a permit- or fee-based alternative to fund enhanced marine patrol and surveillance before the item was presented to the Board because she preferred strengthening marine patrol over a prohibition. Ms. Parra acknowledged Commissioner Regalado’s request. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Office of the Chairperson | 7/13/2026 | Additions | |||||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 7/13/2026 | Municipalities notified of substitute, alternate, or amended ordinance pursuant to Rule 5.06(f)(4) | Recreation, Tourism, and Resiliency Committee | 7/14/2026 | |||
| |
|||||||
| County Attorney | 7/9/2026 | Assigned | Christopher J. Wahl | 7/10/2026 | |||
| |
|||||||
| Board of County Commissioners | 7/9/2026 | Requires Municipal Notification | |||||
| |
|||||||
| Legislative Text |
|
TITLE ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOATS AND WATERWAYS IN THE INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS; CREATING SECTION 7-40.1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ADOPTING OVERNIGHT ANCHORING REGULATIONS, PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL PENALTY AND OTHER REMEDIES; AMENDING SECTION 8CC-10 OF THE CODE; UPDATING SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES TO CONFORM TO AMENDMENTS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE BODY WHEREAS, as boating continues to be a popular recreational activity on Biscayne Bay and an important contributor to the economy and culture of Miami-Dade County, the County must also continue to ensure that public safety is promoted and that an increase in boats on Biscayne Bay does not adversely impact navigation and quality of life; and WHEREAS, previously, section 327.60 of the Florida Statutes generally preempted local governments from regulating the anchoring of vessels outside the marked boundaries of mooring fields unless the vessels were live-aboard vessels or commercial vessels (excluding commercial fishing vessels); and WHEREAS, section 327.4108(2) of the Florida Statutes provided a limited exception to this anchoring preemption, under which a county (but not a municipality) could establish 45-day anchoring limitation areas under certain conditions, but that authority was limited in scope and may have been difficult to enforce; and WHEREAS, during the 2025 session of the Florida Legislature, this Board adopted Resolution No. R-312-25, which urged the Legislature to enact Senate Bill 866, House Bill 481, or similar legislation that would expand local government authority over anchoring; and WHEREAS, ultimately the Legislature enacted, and the Florida Governor signed into law, House Bill 481; and WHEREAS, House Bill 481 enacted, among other things, a broader exception to the anchoring preemption in section 327.60(2)(f)3., by which counties and municipalities could regulate �[v]essels anchored for a period of 1 hour or more between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise for more than 30 days in any 6-month period within the jurisdiction of a county with a population of 1.5 million or more, excluding any time the vessel is anchored overnight within the boundaries of a marked mooring field or any time the vessel is anchored overnight for the purpose of completing permitted marine construction, installation, or maintenance work�; and WHEREAS, the United States Census Bureau estimates that, as of July 1, 2024, the population of Miami-Dade County was 2,838,461; and WHEREAS, with a population well over 1.5 million, Miami-Dade County and its municipalities have the authority to enact anchoring regulations under section 327.60(2)(f)3.; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of vessels anchored for extended periods of time in Biscayne Bay and the waters of Miami-Dade County has reached a critical point at which such practice now impedes other boaters� use and enjoyment of the Bay and other waters, creates navigational hazards, and imposes environmental impacts, such as harm to seagrasses and other benthic resources; and WHEREAS, alternatives to such anchoring practices exist that are significantly less harmful to navigation, the environment, and public welfare, including mooring vessels at docks, marinas, and mooring fields or storing vessels on land; and WHEREAS, chapter 7 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the �Code�), has regulations governing mooring and other boating activities; and WHEREAS, this Board wishes to exercise this Board�s authority under section 327.60(2)(f)3. to regulate the overnight anchoring of vessels and to provide for enforcement by civil penalty under chapter 8CC of the Code and by the remedies under section 1-5 of the Code, which include but are not limited to injunctive relief and judicially imposed civil penalties at amounts significantly greater than the penalties under chapter 8CC; and WHEREAS, to not unduly interfere with certain important long-term vessel activities, this Board also wishes to provide certain exemptions similar to exemptions that exist under state law for related anchoring regulations, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are approved and incorporated herein. Section 2. Section 7-40.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows:1 >>Sec. 7-40.1. � Restriction on overnight anchoring. (a) Restriction on overnight anchoring. It shall be unlawful, whether on Biscayne Bay or any other waters of the state in the incorporated or unincorporated areas, for any vessel to be anchored for a period of 1 hour or more between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise for more than 30 days in any 6-month period, excluding any time the vessel is anchored overnight within the boundaries of a marked mooring field or any time the vessel is anchored overnight for the purpose of completing permitted marine construction, installation, or maintenance work. (b) Exemptions. The following vessels shall be exempt from the restriction in subsection (a): (1) Vessels owned or operated by a governmental entity or operated at the request of a governmental entity, if such vessels are engaged in a governmental function. (2) A construction or dredging vessel on an active job site. (3) A commercial fishing vessel, as defined in section 327.02, Florida Statutes, actively engaged in commercial fishing. (c) Enforcement. (1) Any owner or operator of a vessel in violation of this section is subject to civil penalties under chapter 8CC and the remedies under section 1-5. Each day during any portion of which a vessel remains in violation of this section shall constitute a separate violation. Vessels anchored in violation of this section shall also be declared to be nuisances, and the County may take enforcement action as to such nuisance vessels using the process set forth in division 2 of this article, which enforcement action may include, but shall not be limited to, removing, impounding, or destroying the vessel after the notice and opportunity to be heard provided by division 2. (2) This section shall apply to both the incorporated and unincorporated areas. In the unincorporated area, this section may be enforced by the County through its code inspectors, and in the incorporated areas, this section may be enforced by both the municipalities and the County through its code inspectors unless a municipality has both adopted its own regulations as provided in paragraph (5) below and provided the County written notice from the municipality�s governing body, and submitted to the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Board, that the municipality does not want the County to enforce within the municipality�s boundaries. It is provided further that this shall not be construed to limit the County�s authority to enforce this section within a municipality that has not adopted its own regulations as provided in paragraph (5) below. (3) Any law enforcement officer with jurisdiction may also enforce this section. (4) Courtesy Warning Notice. Prior to the issuance of a penalty under chapter 8CC or the taking of other enforcement action, including the filing of an action in court, the owner or operator of a vessel in violation of this section or expected to soon be in violation of this section shall be given a warning notice in accordance with the following procedure: (A) A warning notice shall be in writing and include: the date and time of the warning; the location of the vessel; a statement that the vessel is in violation of this section or expected to soon be in violation of this section; the timeframe during which the violation or expected violation has been occurring; the types of penalties that may be pursued if the violation is not corrected, including that such list of penalties is not necessarily exhaustive; and a statement either that the vessel needs to be removed or that the vessel soon will need to be removed. (B) The warning notice shall be given personally to an owner, operator, or occupant of the vessel, except that if such person refuses to accept the notice, or if the vessel is unoccupied, or if occupancy cannot be determined, the notice may instead be affixed to the vessel. In addition to any of the foregoing means of delivering the warning notice, the warning notice shall be mailed by U.S. Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested, to the vessel�s registered owner and any lienholder of the vessel. (C) The warning notice provided by this procedure is a courtesy, and the failure to provide a warning in accordance with this paragraph shall not serve as a defense to or in any way invalidate any proceeding undertaken to enforce this section. (D) Upon receipt of a warning notice, a vessel owner or operator must be given an opportunity to provide proof that the vessel has not exceeded the restriction described in subsection (a). Such proof may take the form of documentation or electronic evidence, including, but not limited to, navigational devices or tracking devices. (5) This section is adopted under section 327.60(2)(f)3., Florida Statutes. Each municipality may establish and enforce its own anchoring regulations under section 327.60(2)(f)3., and nothing in this section 7-40.1 shall be construed to prevent a municipality from adopting or enforcing regulations stricter than those in this section 7-40.1. A municipality that adopts or has previously adopted its own anchoring regulations under section 327.60(2)(f)3. shall file the applicable legislation with the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Board, but the enforceability of such municipal regulation shall not be contingent on such filing. (6) The regulations in this section are supplemental to, and do not limit or otherwise alter, other regulations in this code or otherwise provided by federal, state, or local law unless expressly specified therein. (d) Definitions. For purposes of this section only, the following definitions shall apply. (1) Anchoring or anchored shall refer to the act of temporarily securing a vessel in the water by means of an anchor or similar device and associated tackle that is carried on the vessel and cast or dropped overboard. (2) Operator shall mean any person who operates a vessel, and the terms person and operate shall be as defined in section 327.02, Florida Statutes, as may be amended. (3) Owner shall have the same meaning as the term vessel owner as defined in section 327.02, Florida Statutes, as may be amended. (4) Sunrise shall mean the sunrise time per the National Weather Service or its successor. (5) Sunset shall mean the sunset time per the National Weather Service or its successor. (6) Waters of the state shall have the same meaning as the term waters of this state as defined in section 327.02, Florida Statutes, as may be amended.<< Section 3. Section 8CC-10 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 8CC-10. Schedule of Civil Penalties. The following table shows the sections of this code, as they may be amended from time to time, which may be enforced pursuant to the provisions of this chapter; and the dollar amount of civil penalty for the violation of these sections as they may be amended. The �descriptions of violations� below are for informational purposes only and are not meant to limit or define the nature of the violations or the subject matter of the listed sections of this code, except to the extent that different types of violations of the same section may carry different civil penalties. For each section listed in the schedule of civil penalties, the entirety of that section may be enforced by the mechanism provided in this chapter, regardless of whether all activities proscribed or required within that particular section are described in the �Description of Violation� column. To determine the exact nature of any activity proscribed or required by this, the relevant section must be examined. Code Section Description of Violation Civil Penalty * * * 7-37 Abandonment of vessel 100.00 >>7-40.1 Any violation of section 7-40.1 First offense 500.00 Second offense within five years 1,000.00 Third or subsequent offense within five years 2,500.00<< * * * Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 5. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word. Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the County Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board. 1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. |
|
Home |
Agendas |
Minutes |
Legislative Search |
Lobbyist Registration |
Legislative Reports
Home | Using Our Site | About | Phone Directory | Privacy | Disclaimer
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to
Webmaster
|
