Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 261932

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 261932

File Type: Ordinance

Status: Second Reading

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Pending BCC Assignment

File Name: PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES AND MOBILE CARRIERS

Introduced: 10/29/2026

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 11/17/2026

Agenda Item Number: 7C

Notes:

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES AND MOBILE CARRIERS IN THE INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; CREATING CHAPTER 31, ARTICLE VIII OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES AND MOBILE CARRIERS; PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE INTENT, APPLICABILITY, AND DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 8CC-10 OF THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL PENALTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEMS UNDER FILE NOS. 261294, 261779]

Indexes:

NONE

Sponsors:

Micky Steinberg, Prime Sponsor

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

County Attorney	10/29/2026		Assigned	Dale P. Clarke		11/6/2026

Transportation Cmte	10/14/2026	1G1 Substitute Amended	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendments following public hearing
REPORT:	ACA Morse read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairman Gilbert III opened the public hearing, and the following persons appeared before the Committee: Mr. Nick Garzilli, 224 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida, spoke regarding autonomous delivery vehicles, the future of autonomous delivery, and how to move more of these vehicles off public streets. He identified himself as the founder and CEO of Chariot Living, which was bringing “Whoosh,” developed out of Google’s Project Swift, to Miami-Dade County, in partnership with Swift Cities. He noted that he had projects worldwide, including Anaheim, Irvine, and Tokyo, involving car-sized vehicles that traveled on separate, elevated, grade-separated highways. Mr. Garzilli expressed concerns regarding the safety of delivery drones operating on public streets, noting that some were aggressive and remotely operated from other countries, and commended the Committee for addressing those problems while looking ahead to autonomous networks. Mr. Nicholas Pascual, Ballard Partners, 201 Alhambra Plaza, Coral Gables, Florida, stated that he represented Serve Robotics and thanked Commissioner Steinberg and her staff for their work on the item. Mr. Pascual noted his support for the foregoing ordinance but raised concerns regarding the restriction on advertising on autonomous delivery robots, which was important to the company’s revenue stream, and the proposed 20-minute idling limit. He noted that most major cities had adopted a 30-minute standard and requested that Miami-Dade County adopt the same limit. Seeing no one else come forward to speak, Chairman Gilbert III closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinberg explained that the item had been developed in consultation with the industry, as reflected in the changes between the original and substitute versions. She stated that although delivery robots might be well-intentioned, they were causing significant problems in many areas, and the ordinance was an opportunity to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework. She pointed out that the legislation would not preempt municipalities, which could permit delivery bot service providers to operate within their jurisdictions, work directly with the providers, adopt the County’s regulations, or establish their own. Commissioner Steinberg noted that advertising was within each municipality’s purview to negotiate with service providers. She stated that delivery bots were not yet prevalent in unincorporated Miami-Dade County but could be in the future, and that she was being proactive in laying the groundwork, which could be reevaluated as the industry grew. Addressing the idling limit, she explained that the original version had set it at 10 minutes and the substitute at 20 minutes; the limit was not a deal breaker, but the intent was to prevent bots from occupying rights-of-way, sidewalks, and crosswalks for extended periods. She added that the ordinance also addressed speed limits to protect pedestrians and persons in wheelchairs. Vice Chairwoman Regalado stated that delivery bots were prevalent throughout her district and that many restaurants preferred them over human couriers because of temperature control and security. She stated that her concern was not the length of time the bots remained idle, but where they idled and the number congregating in one location. She stated that she was not against advertising and suggested that advertising revenue could help offset the cost of delivery services, which had become very expensive for restaurants, to the point that some could no longer offer delivery. She suggested that the restaurant industry, which used the bots, be consulted on how the regulations might affect them. Commissioner Bermudez commented that government could not resolve every problem and that the private sector should be allowed to find a workable balance. He stated that he was fine with a 30-minute idling limit if there was a reason for it, compared the situation to the earlier issue of shared bicycles left throughout cities, and stated that he was fine either way on advertising. Chairman Gilbert III stated that he struggled to see why the County should care whether the bots carried advertising and was inclined to allow it if it supported the companies’ business model. He stated that he preferred the term “idling” to “loitering” and concurred with Vice Chairwoman Regalado that where the bots idled was more important than how long they idled, noting that he wanted them out of the way when waiting. He added that the free market should determine whether restaurants chose to use the bots. Vice Chairwoman Regalado noted that the ordinance identified locations where delivery bots were prohibited but did not specify where they were permitted to idle, which could lead to confusion. She explained that in her neighborhood the bots moved onto the swales to stay off the sidewalks and asked where they would be permitted to idle. She also asked whether a determination had been made regarding the use of funds collected through permitting and fines, and suggested that the funds be directed to sidewalk repairs, since delivery bots, like pedestrians, became stuck on damaged sidewalks and crosswalks. In response, Chairman Gilbert III stated that, given DTPW’s reliance on the General Fund, he was comfortable with the funds being used for any purpose that reduced General Fund expenditures and was not inclined to limit how DTPW used the fees collected. Commissioner Bastien concurred that there was no need to regulate how DTPW used the funds. She suggested establishing designated stopping areas similar to bus stops, noting that the number of delivery bots was expected to multiply in the coming years, and emphasized the need for continued discussion. She stated that she did not object to advertising and believed that anything businesses could do to generate income during difficult economic times should be encouraged. Chairman Gilbert III asked the County Attorney’s Office whether a portion of advertising revenue could be directed to other purposes, such as community-based organizations (CBOs), as had been done through community benefit agreements with billboard companies. ACA Morse explained that the County was constrained in imposing permitting fees, which required a direct relationship between the fee and the work performed by DTPW, and that an advertising fee would not be related to DTPW’s work. Commissioner Steinberg explained that the intent of the ordinance was not to stop the use of delivery bots but to balance pedestrian safety, quality-of-life concerns, and respect for the environment. She stated that the ordinance would automatically return to the Board in one year with a report, given the fast-moving nature of the industry, to avoid unintended consequences and overregulation. She clarified that advertising had been excluded because some municipalities were already negotiating their own contracts and permits, while others would opt into the County’s regulations or create their own. She suggested that, when the item returned in 12 months, the administration could provide options for advertising in unincorporated Miami-Dade County and where those revenues would go, noting that the County should not authorize advertising without a cost-revenue sharing arrangement. She also expressed concern about opening the door to advertising that Board members might find objectionable. She stated that amending the idling limit to 30 minutes was acceptable and that the ordinance already limited the number of bots that could congregate in one area. Vice Chairwoman Regalado agreed with the 30-minute standard and stated that advertising should not be prohibited. She noted that delivery bots crossed jurisdictional lines and that it would be impractical for a bot’s advertising to be lawful in one city and unlawful across the street in another. She suggested including enabling language authorizing the administration to enter into agreements with companies seeking to operate in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, including advertising, with a portion of the revenue allocated to a designated purpose. She emphasized that there should be a nexus between the County’s share of advertising revenue and its use, such as repairing the sidewalks and streets the bots traveled on, and stated that the agreements could return to the Board if preferred. Chairman Gilbert III moved to amend the foregoing ordinance to allow delivery bots to idle for up to 30 minutes, to specify where they could idle if necessary, and to permit advertising as an option subject to separate agreements negotiated administratively, with community benefits directed to CBOs or as otherwise determined by the administration. Commissioner Steinberg asked whether the criteria for permissible advertising content would be reviewed, noting that some bots in the City of Miami were advertising gambling. Chairman Gilbert III responded that content-based restrictions raised First Amendment concerns that the County Attorney’s Office did not wish to address, and reiterated that advertising would be an optional agreement with the administration. Commissioner Steinberg stated that she would prefer no advertising, or at minimum that the agreements return to the Board, and noted that she did not have a vote on the Committee but appreciated the item advancing to the Board. Chairman Gilbert III agreed that the advertising agreements would come back to the Board. Vice Chairwoman Regalado confirmed that the idling limit would be 30 minutes. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to a roll call vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as amended.

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES AND MOBILE CARRIERS IN THE INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; CREATING CHAPTER 31, ARTICLE VIII OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR THE SAFE OPERATION OF PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES AND MOBILE CARRIERS; PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE INTENT, APPLICABILITY, AND DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 8CC-10 OF THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL PENALTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, section 316.2071, Florida Statutes, provides that subject to section 316.008(7)(b), Florida Statutes, a personal delivery device or mobile carrier operating on a sidewalk or crosswalk has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, except that the personal delivery device or mobile carrier must not unreasonably interfere with pedestrians or traffic and must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on the sidewalk or crosswalk; and
WHEREAS, section 316.008(7)(b)1, Florida Statutes, provides that a personal delivery device and a mobile carrier may be operated on sidewalks and crosswalks within a county or municipality when such use is permissible under federal law, and that counties and municipalities are not restricted from otherwise adopting regulations for the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers; and
WHEREAS, this Board has taken notice of the rising number of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers operating upon the sidewalks and crosswalks in this County and wishes to, as authorized by section 316.008(7)(b), adopt regulations for the safe operation of such devices within the County; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the potential benefits of such technologies, including increased efficiency in goods delivery and reduced vehicular congestion; and
WHEREAS, the County experiences high pedestrian volumes, multimodal transportation demands, and significant tourism activity; and
WHEREAS, as a result, this Board finds that unregulated access to the public rights of way could be inimical to the pedestrian safety, accessibility, and to the orderly use of sidewalks and crosswalks in this County; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that appropriate regulation is therefore necessary to ensure the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers in this County, and desires to establish a comprehensive framework governing the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers within the County,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Chapter 31, Article VIII of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows:1
CHAPTER 31. VEHICLES FOR HIRE
* * *

>>ARTICLE VIII � REGULATION OF PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES AND MOBILE CARRIERS

Sec. 31-801 - Title and authority.

This article shall be known as the �Personal Delivery Device and Mobile Carrier Safety Code.� This article is adopted pursuant to the authority in the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Amendment and Charter, and the authority granted to counties in chapters 125 and 316 of the Florida Statutes, as they may be amended from time to time.

Sec. 31-802. - Regulation of Personal Delivery Devices and Mobile Carriers.

(1) Applicability and enforcement.

a. This article shall apply to both the incorporated and unincorporated areas. In the unincorporated area, this article shall be enforced by the County, and in the incorporated areas, this article may be enforced by the municipalities. It is provided, however, that this shall not be construed to limit the County's authority to enforce this article within a municipality that has not adopted its own regulations as provided in subparagraph (b) below.

b. Each municipality may establish and enforce its own regulations deemed necessary for the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobility carriers, whether more or less stringent than the provisions of this article. A municipality that adopts or has previously adopted its own regulations for the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobility carriers shall file the applicable legislation with the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Board, but the enforceability of such municipal regulations shall not be contingent on such filing.

(2) Definitions. Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, the definitions in Section 316.003, Florida Statutes, as such may be amended from time to time, apply to this article. In addition, the following words and phrases, when used in this article shall, for the purpose of this article, have the meanings given to them in this section:

a. �Director� shall be as defined in section 2-99 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

b. �Department� means the Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works or successor department with jurisdiction and administration over traffic; or as may be applicable, the department within a municipality responsible for enforcing this article or the regulations adopted by such municipality for the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobility carriers.

c. �Geofence� or �Geofencing� means technological measures that restrict the geographic area or operational characteristics of a delivery device.

d. �Personal delivery device� shall have the meaning provided in section 316.003(59), Florida Statutes, as may be amended from time to time.

e. �Mobile carrier� shall have the meaning provided in section 316.003(43), Florida Statutes, as may be amended from time to time.

f. �Delivery device� when used solely in this section shall be deemed to include both personal delivery devices and mobile carriers.

g. �Personal delivery device operator� or �operator� shall have the meaning provided in section 316.003(60), Florida Statutes, as may be amended from time to time.

h. �Right-of-way� means land devoted to or required for use as a roadway, sidewalk, or other associated feature, and includes, without limitation, (i) all existing or dedicated road rights-of-way and (ii) all proposed dedications of road rights-of-way set forth on official grading and drainage plans approved pursuant to tentative plats.

i. �Sidewalk� means that portion of a right-of-way between the curbline, or the lateral line, of a roadway and the adjacent property lines, intended for use by pedestrians.

(3) Permit Required. No person or entity shall deploy or operate one or more delivery devices within the unincorporated areas of the County without first obtaining a permit from the County; or in the incorporated areas of the County, without first obtaining a permit from the municipality within which such delivery device is to be operated. Each operating permit may be issued for up to a one (1) year period and may be renewed, as applicable, by the County or the municipality upon the operator�s demonstration of compliance with this section.

a. Every application for an initial permit, renewal application, or transfer or amendment of a permit shall be in writing, signed and sworn to by the applicant, and shall be filed, as applicable, with the County or municipality together with a processing fee as established by the County or municipality. If the applicant is a corporation, the form shall be signed and sworn to by the president or vice-president, and the corporate secretary shall attest such signature and affix the corporate seal. If the applicant is a partnership, the form shall be signed and sworn to by a general partner. The statements contained in the application shall become a part of the certificate and may be modified only in accordance with this article. The application shall be on a form provided by the Department or municipality and shall contain all information required thereon, including:

i. Sufficient information to identify the applicant, including but not limited to full legal name, and trade name, date of birth, telephone number, business address and residence address, of the applicant. If the applicant is a corporation, the foregoing information shall be provided for each officer, resident agent and director. If the applicant is a partnership, the foregoing information shall be provided for each partner. Post office box addresses will not be accepted hereunder. All corporate or partnership applicants shall be organized or qualified to do business under the laws of Florida.

ii. The unique identification number of each delivery device to be operated under the permit being applied for;

iii. Designation of a 24-hour contact;

iv. Proof of insurance as required by section 31-802(9) of the Code;

v. Description of fleet size and service area for each device to be operated under the permit;

vi. Description of the applicant�s safety and monitoring protocols.

vii. A sworn statement signed by the applicant that all the information provided by the applicant is true and correct.

b. Investigation of permit applicants.�The Department shall investigate each application and accompanying required documents and reject any application that is not properly filed or that is incomplete or untrue in whole or in part. The Department may approve or deny the issuance of delivery device permit as specified in this article on such terms and conditions as public safety may require. The Department's decision to reject or to deny may be appealed in accordance with this article.

(4) Where the Department determines it necessary for the safe operation of delivery devices, the Department may:

i. Designate �high-pedestrian areas� as used in this ordinance.

ii. Establish geographic zones for purposes consistent with this ordinance.

iii. Designate slow-speed zones or time restricted zones, provided that such restrictions are narrowly tailored and such designation does not effectively prohibit the operation of delivery devices in any zone so designated.

iv. Limit the number of delivery devices that may be operated under each permit, providing that such limits do not effectively prohibit the operation of delivery devices in any geographic zone.

v. Limit the number of permits issued for the operation of delivery devices in a particular geographic zone.

vi. Time of day restrictions. The Department may establish restrictions on the hours of operation in areas designated as high-pedestrian areas or other geographic zones as may be deemed necessary for safe operation of delivery devices, providing that such time-of-day restrictions do not effectively prohibit the operation of delivery devices in any geographic zone.

(5) Required Delivery Device Enhancements.

a. All delivery devices operating in this County shall be equipped with:

i. White light on the front and red light on the rear.

ii. Reflectors that are visible from all angles on each side.

iii. An audible alert system capable of alerting pedestrians within 15 feet of the delivery device.

iv. A braking system capable of bringing the delivery device to an immediate stop.

v. Obstacle detection technology.

vi. A unique identification number displayed externally.

vii. Geofencing technology that allows operators to, at a minimum (a) enforce the speed limits required by this section automatically, and when required, remotely; and (b) restrict the operation of such delivery device in the prohibited areas and at prohibited times.

viii. Automatic stop feature if communication signal is lost between the operator and the delivery device. Such feature shall ensure that a delivery device is not stopped in a prohibited area at prohibited times.

(6) Display requirements. Every delivery device shall display on its exterior a quick response (QR) barcode that leads to the operator�s contact information or a phone number to contact the operator.

(7) No Advertisement. Absent a separate agreement between the County and a delivery device operator approved by the Board, delivery devices may not display any commercial advertisement except for the name of the owner of such delivery device displayed once on the front, rear, and each side of each delivery device.

(8) Rules of Operation.

a. Speed Limit.

i. Delivery devices operating upon the sidewalks of this County shall not exceed the maximum speed limits set forth in this subsection:

1. Maximum of 8 miles per hour on sidewalks.

2. Maximum of 6 miles per hour in high-pedestrian areas, as such areas may be designated pursuant to section 31-802((4)(i).

3. Maximum of 10 miles per hour in crosswalks.

b. Delivery devices shall be made to come to a full stop prior to entering any crosswalk.

c. Pedestrian Priority. Delivery devices shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at all times.

(9) Prohibited activities.

a. Delivery devices shall not be operated within school zones during the school zone speed limit enforcement times established by section 30-5 of the Code.

b. Staging or storage of delivery devices in the public right-of-way is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the Director in writing.

c. Delivery devices shall not be stopped or parked in a manner that obstructs pedestrian travel.

d. Delivery devices shall not be parked, stopped, or made to remain idle on the sidewalks for a period greater than 30 minutes unless actively engaged in delivery. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Department is authorized to designate zones where delivery devices may be permitted to park and remain idle for periods greater than 30 minutes.

e. Delivery devices shall not be parked, stopped, or made to remain idle in any crosswalk.

f. Delivery devices shall not be parked, stopped, or made to remain idle upon any Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) warning pad, except where necessary to gain access to a crosswalk in a manner consistent with the provisions of this section.

g. Delivery devices shall not impede pedestrian access to:

i. crosswalks,

ii. curb ramps,

iii. ADA ramps,

iv. ADA warning pads,

v. Fire hydrants,

vi. Transit stops or stations, or

vii. Bus loading locations.

(10) Registration and Insurance requirement. A person or entity that owns and operates a delivery device in this County must maintain an insurance policy on behalf of himself, herself, or itself and his, her, or its agents, which provides general liability coverage of at least $100,000 for damages arising from the combined operations of delivery devices under the person�s, entity�s, or agent�s control, as required by section 316.2071, Florida Statutes, as may be amended from time to time. Such person or entity shall, on an annual basis, by no later than January 31st of each year, submit to the Department a certificate of insurance demonstrating the coverage required by this section.

(11) Monitoring and incident reporting. Operators shall at all times maintain the capability to monitor delivery devices in real time. Operators shall log and maintain a record of all incidents that result in property damage or personal injury caused by or stemming from the operation of the operator�s delivery device(s). Operators shall report any incident that results in property damage or personal injury caused by or stemming from the operation of a delivery device to the Department within 24-hours of its occurrence. Operators shall remove any malfunctioning or inoperable device from the public right-of-way within 6 hours of actual or constructive notice of such inoperability.

(12) Penalties. Any person violating a provision of this section shall be subject to the penalties and remedies provided in section 1-5 and chapter 8CC and any other penalties or remedies provided by law. Each violation, and each day, or portion thereof, that a violation of this section exists shall constitute a separate offense.

(13) Administration. The County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee is authorized to adopt administrative orders necessary to implement the provisions of this Article.

(14) Twelve months following the effective date of this ordinance, the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee shall prepare a written report regarding the implementation and enforcement of this ordinance, and shall place the completed report on an agenda of the full Board without committee review pursuant to rule 5.06(j) of the Board's Rules of Procedure.�

Section 2. 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.

* * *

Code Section
Description of Violation
Civil Penalty

* * *

>>31-802
Failure to obtain insurance required by section 31-802(9).
$500.00
31-802
Operation of a delivery device without a permit.
$500.00
31-802
Any other operation of a delivery device in violation of section 31-802.

First offense:

Second or subsequent offense:

$250.00

$500.00<<

* * *

Section 3. 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 4. 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 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the 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.