Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 171627

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 171627

File Type: Ordinance

Status: Second Reading

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: REGULATIONS FOR VACATION RENTALS AIRBNB REGISTRATION

Introduced: 6/22/2017

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 10/17/2017

Agenda Item Number: 7A

Notes:

SEE 172425 FOR FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED - X-REF W. 171313. SEE ITEM NOS.171070 AND 171561

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULATION OF VACATION RENTALS; CREATING SECTION 33-28 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF USE AND ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS FOR VACATION RENTALS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF USE AND RENEWAL; PROVIDING VACATION RENTAL STANDARDS AND DUTIES OF PEER-TO-PEER OR PLATFORM ENTITIES AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES; REQUIRING A BOND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING VACATION RENTALS TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN EXISTING CODE PROVISIONS AND IMPOSING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL CODE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY, SIGNS, NOISE, PARKING AND PETS; PROHIBITING A SEXUAL PREDATOR OR OFFENDER FROM OCCUPYING A VACATION RENTAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM ALLOWING A SEXUAL PREDATOR OR OFFENDER TO OCCUPY A VACATION RENTAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AMENDING SECTION 8CC; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL PENALTIES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NOS. 171070 AND 171561] [SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 11A6]

Indexes:	IMPLEMENTING ORDER
	VACATION RENTALS

Sponsors:

Sally A. Heyman, 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

Board of County Commissioners	10/17/2017	7A	Amended
REPORT:	See Agenda Item 7A Amended; Legislative File No. 172425.

Board of County Commissioners	10/3/2017	7B	Deferred		10/17/2017		P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney James Kirtley read the following proposed amendments into the record for the foregoing Ordinance: On handwritten page 14, subsection (d)(1)(b), the phrase “only provide a listing for or collect a fee for listing” will be replaced with the phrase “only provide payment processing services or otherwise facilitate payment for.” On handwritten page 17, the provision entitled Responsible Party On Site would be deleted and replaced with a requirement that in any area designated on the CDMP as a state or low density residential, the property on which a vacation rental is operated shall be a residence in which the responsible party resides for more than six months per calendar year, provided however that such requirements shall not preclude the rental of the property at the same time as the responsible party is residing there. On handwritten page 19, the Public Nuisance provision in the ordinance shall be amended to conform with Article 13a of the Code by adding references to Sections 823.05 and 823.10 of Florida Statutes, pertaining to illegal drug violations, gang related activities, and other state criminal law violations declared a public nuisance by state statute. On handwritten page 20, the addition of subsection 13 pertaining to swimming pool safety features that required the responsible party to ensure any swimming pool on site has in place at least one of the safety features listed in Section 515.27 Florida Statutes, prior to use of the property as a vacation rental by any person under the age of 6; to provide circumstances under which the responsible party shall be deemed to have complied with this requirement; and to provide an exception from the requirement for community swimming pools not located directly on the vacation rental property. The existing subsection 13 in the ordinance would be renumbered accordingly. On handwritten page 21, the addition of subsection 4 to specify that five percent of money collected from vacation rental code enforcement violations shall be deposited in the County’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, followed by discussion. In response to Commissioner Edmonson’s request for clarification on the proposed amendments, Assistant County Attorney Kirtley advised the responsible party requirement was removed; however, if the person who lived in the residence for six months or more a year and wished to rent out a room had the option to remain on site, but was not required to. Commissioner Edmonson expressed concern with hotels and motels being required to give up personal information, such as social security numbers and birthdates, an on their clients if they received an inquiry and opined that information should only be provided if requested by the police department or by subpoena. Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer Raurell clarified the County had the right to request information and/or inspect documents related to the County’s requirements as they pertained to any suspected violations. Commissioner Heyman concurred with concerns expressed by Vice Chairwoman Edmonson and suggested language be included that specified, if a violation occurred, the requested information would be only be provided for the purpose of enforcement by a County department. Mr. Brian May, attorney representing AIRBNB, 235 Catalonia Avenue, pointed out names, addresses and phone numbers were provided to the County on the certificate of use, as required in the ordinance; however, he expressed concern with the provision language that stated any information related to a suspected violation would be required to be disclosed. He noted the provision, as written, required all information requested by the County to be turned over by the platform and if enforcement of that provision ever occurred it would be challenged by the platforms. Further discussion ensued regarding the disclosure of information where it was pointed out the Board could limit and/or exclude the submission of certain confidential information or include a subpoena requirement to obtain personal information, excluding social security numbers, credit card numbers, and/or names of minor children. It was clarified the County Attorney’s office would prepare the amended language that addressed those concerns. A discussion ensued regarding the six month residency requirement for low density residential areas where it was noted, zoning requirements for low density areas was 2.5 to 6 units per acre, which was a higher density than a single family home designation. Concerns were also expressed with the proposed ordinance requiring the owner to occupy the unit if they wanted to rent it for more than six months. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel clarified the rental property had to be the owner’s primary residence six months out of the year; that the owner had the option to rent a portion of their property or a room while they occupied the property; that if it was a designated density of estate, single family, or duplex and was being rented more than six months, the owner was required to occupy the premises; and if the owner rented the property for up to six months, the owner could leave the residence during that time period. Commissioner Heyman pointed out the six month requirement addressed concerns to prevent primary residences in residential neighborhoods, designated estate, single family, or duplex from turning into commercial rental properties. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the proposed ordinance did not apply to long term rental properties that were investment properties; only to short term rental properties. He explained an owner could vacate their primary residence and rent it out for up to six months; however, if the rental agreement was longer than six months, the property owner must also occupy the dwelling. He further clarified short term rentals were defined as being less than 30 days. Commissioner Sosa noted she agreed with the requirements contained in the proposed ordinance and suggested it also include a requirement that specified 50% of violation fines paid be used to hire neighborhood enforcement inspector’s and 50% be used for transit. Commissioner Heyman pointed out most violations were reported by the neighbors, not found by the inspector’s, and RER recommended no more than 10% of the fine payments be allocated to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. During additional discussion on the proposed legislation it was pointed out that it applied only in unincorporated Miami-Dade County and Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised there were grandfathered temporary vacation ordinances imposed by the State Legislature that allowed certain pre-existing rental properties to be unaffected by this proposed ordinance. He further clarified the County could regulate and/or enforce the zoning characteristics of an area and opined the matters covered in the proposed ordinance were consistent with the State statute; however, pointed out the County could not regulate duration and frequency. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted the proposed ordinance was applicable to all residential zoning districts; the primary residence provision applied only in low density and estate density areas; and the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) would be responsible for monitoring. In response to Commissioner Diaz’ question regarding a condominium owner’s ability to rent their property if it’s not permitted under their HOA rules and regulations, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel explained a condominium association had the ability to impose greater control over an owner than the government and, despite zoning laws reflecting otherwise, a condo owner would have to get permission from their association. He further noted the proposed legislation required the responsible party to notify their HOA or condo board of their intent to rent their property and provide proof of that notification to the County. With regards to the issuance of a certificate of use, it was noted RER was authorized by the proposed ordinance to come to a residence and perform an inspection to determine compliance; however, the Board or the department could set the policy as to when and how inspections were conducted. Additionally, a property owner was not required to operate their residence as an Airbnb and if they chose not to do so, they would not be subjected to the requirements of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Diaz opined enforcement of the proposed ordinance would only occur if a complaint was made by a neighbor and expressed concern with the County becoming overwhelmed with having to conduct inspections and provide monitoring. Mr. May reiterated his client, Airbnb, was particularly concerned with three provisions of the ordinance: the six month requirement in low density residential areas; the requirement to share confidential information; and the platform being held liable for any violations under the County Code. Additional discussion ensued regarding the concerns expressed by the industry representatives, particularly with the platform liability provision and, as a result, Commissioner Suarez stated he would support a motion to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance. Commissioner Souto expressed concern that laws were being crafted to benefit certain entities. He commented on those homeowners who rented a room in their home out of necessity in order to make ends meet and pointed out many those individuals, particularly in his district, would not be amenable to this type of legislation; particularly due to penalties that were imposed against them in the past for renting out a portion of their home. It was pointed out that enforcement of illegal construction of a separate individual unit used for rental purposes on a single family home would continue, as it was a violation of the zoning code, and fines would be imposed. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised the zoning code was written over sixty years ago and did not account for unique situations, such as student housing. Furthermore, in response to a question posed by Commissioner Sosa, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised it would be challenging for the County to prohibit Airbnb from operating in residential areas due to Florida Statutes. Commissioner Sosa opined a residential homeowner who operated their home as an Airbnb should lose their homestead exemption. In response to Commissioner Diaz’ question regarding tax agreements, staff noted the County currently had one MOU with Airbnb and requests were sent out to Flipkey and Homeaway; however no responses had been received as yet. Mr. Leyva, representing Expedia (Homeaway and BRBO), explained he was contacted by the County and forwarded their request to the company (Expedia) who stated they would respond directly to the County. He stated he was unaware of whether or not Expedia had responded to the County and/or entered into an agreement. Chairman Bovo concurred with concerns expressed; noted most online rental requests were for the downtown and beach areas; expressed concern with numerous county regulations imposed on certain entities,yet did not apply to hotels; and opined there were a number of outstanding issues related to this matter that still needed to be addressed. Commissioner Diaz presented a motion to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Suarez, followed by discussion. Commissioner Heyman pointed out all stakeholders met to address the industry’s concerns and the proposed ordinance was a result of those meetings and prior suggestions made by fellow Commissioners. She opined the other issues brought forth during today’s discussion, such as efficiencies, short term rental, taxation, and homestead exemption should be addressed via separate legislation. A discussion ensued on the motion to defer where it was noted the need for regulations in residential areas was an urgent matter; that legislation should be fair for all concerned parties; and the need for proper supervision of single family home rentals. The motion to defer, upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 4-6. Commissioners Diaz, Levine Cava, Monestime, and Souto voted Yes; Commissioners Barreiro, Edmonson, Heyman, Martinez, Sosa, and Chairman Bovo voted No. (Commissioners Jordan, Moss, and Suarez were absent). Commissioner Heyman presented a motion to adopt the foregoing proposed ordinance as amended. This motion was seconded by Vice Chairwoman Edmonson and upon being put to a vote, failed due to a 5-5 tie vote. Commissioners Barreiro, Heyman, Martinez, Sosa and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson voted Yes; Commissioners Diaz, Levine Cava, Monestime, Souto, and Chairman Bovo voted No. (Commissioners Jordan, Moss and Suarez were absent). Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised the Board another motion could be made on this item since the motion to adopt as amended failed due to a tie vote. Commissioner Diaz presented a motion to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance to the next BCC meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Suarez, followed by discussion. County Attorney Abigail Price Williams clarified the proper motion for the Board to make would be to reconsider the motion to defer and the motion must be made by a Commissioner who voted against the motion. Commissioner Sosa presented a motion to reconsider the prior motion to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz and, upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 7-4 (Commissioners Heyman, Martinez, Monestime and Vice Chairwoman Edmonson voted No) (Commissioners Jordan and Moss were absent). There being no further questions or comments, the Board, by motion duly made, seconded and carried, deferred the foregoing proposed ordinance as amended to the next Board of County Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Sosa requested legislation related to her prior comment on the homestead exemption issue be prepared and presented at the next Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Board of County Commissioners	7/6/2017	7D	Deferred		9/7/2017		P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Commissioner Heyman indicated that vacation rentals needed to be regulated, noting they were here to stay. She said the ordinance was legal as far as current case law and other challenges. Commissioner Heyman stated that the legislation established regulations for the health, safety, and welfare of residential properties within the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA). She commented on the ability to enforce regulations. Commissioner Heyman noted the hotel and motel industries’ support of this legislation. She pointed out that this would be a licensed, regulated, tax paying industry affording people the opportunity to be temporary residential users under County rules and regulations. Commissioner Heyman submitted letters of support to the Clerk of the Board. Commissioner Heyman reported that host home property owners would be sufficiently notified by the Property Appraiser’s Office of their responsibilities under the law to maintain their Homestead Exemptions. She advised that the platform company would assume responsibility for parking, noise, garbage and other situations that impacted a neighbor, neighborhood, the integrity of a structure, or the community. Commissioner Heyman said the legislation was written to accommodate multiple platform models; that it would maintain accountability; and that it would allow the County to ensure control without impacting commerce or fair trade law. She mentioned that this was a good working model as well as respectful of the industry. Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell read a proposed amendment into the record to delete the language “only provide a listing for, or collect a fee for listing,” and replace it with “only provide payment processing services, or otherwise facilitate payment for listing,” on Handwritten Page 14, Subsection (D) (1) (b). It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Edmonson questioned whether the legislation would include all platforms and whether the platform could be held responsible for violations. Commissioner Heyman reported that Airbnb considered them as a platform, but HomeAway did not. She said there were different levels of accountability. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell reported that there were certain obligations the ordinance placed on these platform entities, noting each entity shall only provide payment processing services or otherwise facilitate payment for vacation rentals with a valid Certificate of Use. She said the County Attorney believed these obligations were legally sufficient and consistent with the law. In response to Commissioner Edmonson’s question about whether the platform entity was held responsible for the rental property advertisements, Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell indicated that they were. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioner Edmonson, Commissioner Heyman and the Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell about the responsible party and the requirement that the responsible party or someone representing the responsible party resided in the property during the time the property was being rented. Chairman Bovo commented that the platform would clearly notify the renter in advance whether the owner would be present or not. Commissioner Souto stated that Miami was doomed if it became a place for drug and sex tourism, noting he believed it could be getting entrapped. He commented on the need to maintain existing zoning codes and regulations to preserve the proper values in its neighborhoods. Commissioner Jordan stated that she thought they were talking about homeowners wanting to rent out a room and make some extra money. She questioned whether this ordinance applied to long or short term vacation rentals. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell reported that the ordinance applied to vacation rentals defined as a period of less than thirty days or one calendar month, whichever was less. She said that a rental over one month would not be subject to this ordinance and that the ordinance would not prohibit rentals of long term rentals through a platform. Commissioner Heyman discussed the rationale behind the responsible party requirement. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that 81 percent of Airbnb listings in Miami in May 2017 were entire homes, noting concern that this took away from the affordable housing market. She further pointed out that 62 percent of those homes were owned by commercial operators, noting the intent was deceiving. Commissioner Jordan said that the commercial industry was buying affordable homes, taking them off the market, and then renting them for income. She indicated that this was not serving the affordable housing homeowner wanting to make additional income. Commissioner Jordan said adjacent homes were impacted by having peer-to-peer rentals in their neighborhoods and the permission of those adjacent property owners should be obtained. She proceeded to provide statistics on the number of affordable homes being taken off the market in each Commission District and suggested that an additional fee be added to supplement the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and not take housing off the market. Commissioner Heyman indicated that this short term rental option was more expensive than a long term lease. She said she was willing to look into allowable fees, noting there had been some challenges to additional fees. Commissioner Jordan said commercial rental properties become part of a business industry. She noted we should evaluate the approach used by New Orleans, LA for use in this community. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell commented that she did not believe an additional fee could be added on top of the Certificate of Use fee. She said there were other fees allowed by State law; however, a fee to supplement the Affordable Housing Trust Fund did not fit into any allowable fee category and therefore was considered an unlawful tax. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell noted other possible considerations such as the Department of Environmental Resources Management Trust Funds. Commissioner Jordan asked Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell to evaluate options that would add to this legislation appropriate language preventing commercial usage of residential properties in order to retain sufficient affordable housing in the community and to meet with her and her colleagues in a Sunshine meeting to further discuss this issue. Commissioner Levine Cava mentioned that she requested to reserve the legislation which Commissioner Jordan was exploring and looked forward to working with her colleagues on this effort. Commissioner Diaz commented that price increases in Miami-Dade County were based on the huge demand and this was one of the largest rental communities. He said that many people wanted this to happen and others did not because they did not want to see changes to their neighborhoods. Commissioner Diaz noted a similarity to the Uber legislation where the Board had been trying to overregulate the industry to the extent that it would have killed the deal for everyone. He commented on the negative impacts associated with neighborhoods getting filled up with unknown people. Commissioner Diaz said nobody was telling people to rent their property; but if they did, there should be guidelines to follow. He stated that rental properties should be operated legally; that appropriate taxes and fees should be collected; and that they should be as safe as possible. Commissioner Diaz expressed concern about renters being required to provide too much information and that information then became a public record. Commissioner Levine Cava said that this was not a new industry; however, the online platforms had made it more convenient. She noted the proper regulation and protection for the public was needed, as was the collection of taxes. She said it was the platforms’ burden to ensure the hosts were complying with County law, but expressed concern that federal laws existed relating to holding the platform accountable under the Stewart Communication Act and the Communications Decency Act. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell reported that both federal laws were examined, and it was the County Attorney’s belief that the ordinance was legally sufficient. She noted counsel for Airbnb and HomeAway provided them with details on cases being litigated in other jurisdictions for review. Commissioner Levine Cava mentioned that she believed the County would likely face litigation in the event this legislation passed, since it was being litigated elsewhere. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioner Levine Cava and Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell about possible litigation. In response to Commissioner Levine Cava’s question as to whether the six month maximum rental or the on-site requirement was contrary to the State preemption, Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell commented that she did not believe it was. She also commented that the ordinance did not impose a six month maximum rental, and that the property should be occupied by an on-site responsible party during the rental period. If the renter did not want the responsible party there, the property should be a residence where the responsible party resided for more than six months, said Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell. Commissioner Levine Cava noted the inspection language was vague and requested additional information as to what would be included. Ms. Lourdes Gomez, Deputy Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources Department indicated that inspections would adhere to the standards listed in Subsection (D) (1) entitled “Duties of peer-to-peer or platform entity” and Subsection (D) (2) entitled “Duties of responsible party”. She said that the applicant would confirm they were in compliance and aware of the ordinance’s provisions by completing various affirmation statements as part of the Certificate of Occupancy application process. Ms. Gomez noted there would not be a fire inspection. She said that an individual renting a home outside of the short term vacation rental platform would not be subject to these requirements. Commissioner Levine Cava requested an industry representative to comment on their concerns. Mr. Neisen Kasden, Akerman, LLP, 98 SE 7 Street, Suite 1100, Miami, appeared before the Board representing Airbnb, noting he was joined by Mr. Tom Martinelli from Airbnb. Mr. Kasden said that there were some issues and problems with the ordinance that would likely result in potential litigation. He noted that Section 33.28 (D) (1) (e) of the ordinance violated the Stewart Communication Act by requiring disclosure of user records and that the requirement that the peer-to-peer or platform entity make available to the County for inspection upon request, all records relating to any suspected violations of State or local law associated with any vacation rental property, was preempted. Mr. Kasden described additional potential violations of the Communications Decency Act as related to holding the platform responsible for various Certificate of Use requirements. He indicated that occupancy terms violated Chapter 509 of the Florida Statutes. Commissioner Levine Cava concurred with Commissioner Jordan’s concern about removing affordable housing from the community, noting this could be an opportunity to raise funds to support affordable housing. She stated that she did not believe the industry was opposed to a surcharge. Commissioner Levine Cava said she did not want to undermine the existing hospitality industry, and remain fair to homeowners wanting to use their homes for rental income. She commented on a less rigorous inspection process and suggested delaying approval of this item, in order to consider this option. She mentioned that the six month restriction on having someone at the premises was an undue burden on homeowners wanting to use the platform. Assistant County Attorney Michael Valdez reported that the County Attorney’s Office was monitoring the Stewart Communication Act and the Communications Decency Act lawsuits, noting the ordinance as drafted addressed many of the concerns set forth in those lawsuits. He said the ordinance limited the litigation potential and was legally sufficient. Commissioner Barreiro indicated that the industry was having a serious effect on affordability, noting there were approximately 5,000 homes in Commission District 5 relying on platform applications and no longer being rented to working class citizens. He said he would like to see a study of Section 8 vouchers from the City of Miami Beach, the City of Hialeah and Miami-Dade County, to determine the number of vouchers that were not being renewed in their current locations and how many of those properties were put on the platforms after not being renewed. Commissioner Barreiro noted people were losing their vouchers because they could not find affordable housing locations. He indicated that an effort to address affordability issues was necessary. Chairman Bovo requested information on the approach used in New Orleans, LA; however, neither Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell nor Ms. Gomez was aware of the approach. Commissioner Barreiro commented that New Orleans established a $1 nightly fee toward their Affordable Housing Trust Fund to address the issue of developing and providing affordable housing. He said that he understood this was accepted by the industry. Chairman Bovo said that what was acceptable elsewhere should be acceptable here, noting he supported an affordable housing surcharge. Commissioner Heyman said the industry was here, and it was her goal to see that it was safely regulated. She mentioned that she accepted adding items, as long as they were legal; however, she cautioned that the State might preempt Miami-Dade County next year. Commissioner Heyman said the League of Cities was looking to Miami-Dade County for appropriate legislation that the municipalities could adopt. She indicated that she was looking for a model that would provide respectful, legal and enforceable regulations. Commissioner Jordan questioned whether a $1.00 nightly fee could be implemented if the fee was voluntarily agreed to by the peer to peer platforms. Assistant County Attorney Eddie Kirtley advised Commissioner Jordan that a voluntary $1.00 nightly fee would be acceptable; however, he noted there were problems associated with an upfront fee requirement, as opposed to a voluntary agreement. Commissioner Jordan requested that a representative from Miami Homes for All explain the New Orleans ordinance. Ms. Sabrina Velarde, Housing Program Manager, Miami Homes for All, 140 West Flagler Street, Miami, explained that the New Orleans regulation required a $1.00 nightly fee from every short-term rental platform. She said the fee became effective May 15, 2017, and the revenue went into the Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Velarde reported that based upon a six month occupancy rate, it was anticipated $1.4 million would be generated in Miami-Dade County from Airbnb business. Commissioner Jordan inquired whether the peer to peer platform representatives would be willing to accept the $1.00 nightly fee. Mr. Brian May, 235 Catelona Avenue, Coral Gables, appeared before the Board, representing Airbnb. He said that the proposal was well-intended and was accepted by Airbnb in New Orleans; however, it was based upon an ordinance that was acceptable to Airbnb. Mr. May indicated that Airbnb would not agree to the fee unless the ordinance addressed the serious ramifications to the company that were presented earlier by Mr. Kasden. Mr. Daniel Diaz Leyva, 999 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 600, Coral Gables, representing Home Away, advised the Board that the company would entertain the $1.00 fee in the event that concerns, including on-site registrations and platform liability limitations, were sufficiently addressed. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s request for clarification on whether the $1.00 fee could be imposed in the existing ordinance, Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell responded that the New Orleans legislation would be reviewed; however, she believed that Louisiana law might differ from Florida law. Commissioner Jordan asked Commissioner Heyman whether she would defer the item in order to develop appropriate language. Commissioner Heyman said she would agree to the deferral. She commented that the industry was currently operating illegally, unregulated and untaxed. Chairman Bovo suggested the possibility of passing the proposed legislation and coming back with additional changes. Commissioner Jordan agreed with Chairman Bovo’s suggestion that the legislation be adopted with the possibility of coming back with changes later. Commissioner Levine Cava indicated that she did not support the legislation with the six month provision or without greater inspection criteria scrutiny, noting issues with these items could be resolved with a short deferral. She said the surcharge could come back later as a separate item. Commissioner Diaz asked Mr. May to address Airbnb’s concerns, which needed to be settled to move forward. Mr. May indicated that issues related to the Communications Decency Act and the Stewart Communications Act needed to be addressed. He said it was a federal violation to disclose information to the County of possible violations of local of State law. Mr. May noted the 6-month provision was a way to get around the State preemption of regulating frequency and duration of stay. He commented that Airbnb would be willing to accept a $1.00 nightly fee in the event these issues were addressed and the other platforms agreed to the fee as well. Commissioner Heyman commented that the suggested changes were not in the best interest of the County. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell responded that the current provisions related to records and record keeping did not require credit card numbers or other sensitive information. Commissioner Diaz asked for the deferral. Commissioner Heyman said she was open to making the legislation better, as long as the County and the community were protected. Chairman Bovo suggested deferral until the September 7, 2017 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell mentioned that Board members could contact the County Attorney’s office to discuss the Item or to suggest possible amendments; however, she cautioned them against communicating about or discussing the item with one another. Commissioner Heyman withdrew her motion to adopt the foregoing proposed ordinance. It was subsequently moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed ordinance be deferred to the September 7, 2017 Board of County Commissioners meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 10-0. Commissioners Martinez, Sosa and Suarez were absent. Following the vote, Commissioner Souto asked Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell and Deputy Mayor Jack Osterholt to determine whether there was existing legislation requiring County inspectors to conduct quarterly follow-up inspections of subject properties after previously identifying significant problems at those properties.

County Attorney	6/22/2017		Assigned	James Eddie Kirtley

Economic Development and Tourism Committee	6/15/2017	1G1 SUBSTITUTE AMENDED	Forwarded to BCC with committee amendments following a public hearing				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. He also advised this item would be considered with Agenda Item 2A. Chairwoman Sosa opened the floor for those persons who wished to speak on the foregoing proposed ordinance. Mr. Tom Martinelli, 3250 NE 1st Avenue, Miami appeared before the EDTC representing Airbnb noted this ordinance was complex, but was a fair policy proposal. He thanked Commissioner Heyman and the County Attorney’s Office for working with this industry on this issue. Mr. Martinelli requested to amend the language in the proposal related to platform liability and platform responsibilities, specifically the responsible party on site requirement on page 17 in addition to Section D. He offered to answer any questions posed during today’s (6/15) EDTC meeting concerning this issue. Mr. Dennis Hanks, 7862 W. Brunson Highway, Kissimmee, representing the Florida Vacation Rental Management Association appeared before the EDTC and spoke of the economic impact of the industry. He commented on the language of this ordinance, which indicated there would be a prohibited growth of the industry and property managers in Miami Dade County. Mr. Hanks stated a letter was sent to the Committee regarding the specific areas of concern as well as the supported components of this ordinance. He noted he looked forward to working with the County on this project as his efforts on behalf of property owners were to supply education, compliance and support relating to vacation rentals. In response to Chairwoman Sosa’s question regarding legalization as it relates to Airbnb in Orlando, Mr. Hanks noted Airbnb was just a platform. He also noted the vacation rentals were legal in many areas of the State of Florida, such as Orlando in certain areas. Commissioner Heyman noted as the prime sponsor she did not receive the letter Mr. Hanks commented on and asked that a copy be provided in today’s meeting as well as one to the County Clerk’s Office. Ms. Sabrina Velarde, 140 W. Flagler Street, Miami appeared before the EDTC representing Miami Homes for All, and spoke in favor of the foregoing proposed ordinance. She asked that the language be amended to incorporate a nightly fee to be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). Ms. Velarde noted a copy of a map with data points was provided relevant to this recommendation and could help determine the amount that could be collected based on the listings. She agreed with the comments made on fairness of this proposal by Mr. Martinelli and thanked Commissioner Heyman for her leadership regarding this item. Ms. Velarde noted this item did not address the impact Airbnb and other short-term rental platforms had on housing and affordability in Miami Dade County (MDC). She spoke about regulations focused on enforcement, and noted fines relying on compliance did not address the impacts on housing, which were difficult to enforce, such as Miami Beach. Ms. Velarde noted she believed the only option was to collect a nightly fee per rental and deposit that fee into the AHTF, which would be of no cost to the County because the collections would be conducted by Airbnb. She further noted a nominal fee of a dollar a night would add up to a million dollars to the AHTF to ensure tourism and innovation were embraced in MDC, in addition to protecting housing. Ms. Judy Pruitt, 8301 Navarre Avenue, Coral Gables, spoke in favor of Airbnb and she submitted a written document. Mr. Bill Talbert, 701 Brickell Avenue, on behalf of Greater Miami Convention Visitor’s Bureau spoke in favor of this proposed item. He stated he did not oppose legal short-term rentals, but opposed illegal rentals. Mr. Marcelo Molina, 4343 NW 114 Place, Doral appeared before the EDTC and through the County translator, spoke in favor of Airbnb. He noted it had helped his business and provided a way to survive. Ms. Wendy Kallergis, 1674 Meridian Avenue, Miami Beach representing Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association spoke in favor of this proposed ordinance. Mr. Tim Gomez, 235 Catalonia Avenue, Coral Gables, representing Airbnb, appeared before the EDTC. He noted that Airbnb was receptive to the proposed ordinance with the exception of some points that hopefully could be addressed before the proposed ordinance was adopted, such as requirement of a licensure by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which did not require a license of owner-occupied vacation rentals. He stated he was unaware of the mechanism to obtain that type of license. Mr. Gomez reiterated the concerns pointed out by Mr. Martinelli pertaining to the requirement that a property representative occupy the vacation rental while the property was being rented, or reside in that rental for a time period of six months plus a day. He expressed concern regarding this policy and noted it was detrimental to the industry holistically and to Airbnb. Ms. Alice Horn, 1900 N. Bayshore Drive, Miami representing the Florida Vacation Rental Manager’s Association spoke in favor of complying with rules and noted the need for them to be reasonable and enforceable. Ms. Graziella Callado, 14323 SW 163 Terrace, Miami spoke in favor of Airbnb. Chairwoman Sosa closed the public hearing seeing no other persons wanting to speak on the foregoing proposal. Commissioner Heyman gave recognition to the following persons: Mr. Tom Martinelli; Mr. Bill Talbert; and Ms. Wendy Kallergis for their assistance in this matter. Commissioner Heyman noted for the record this proposed ordinance was to serve as legal standing for short-term vacation rentals, and did not pertain to only Airbnb, but was inclusive of all companies in this industry. She also noted this ordinance was only for unincorporated Miami-Dade County; however this ordinance would be a model for Cities to implement their own language. Commissioner Heyman spoke about providing the Florida Association of Counties a copy of this ordinance by the end of June for 30 other counties in the State of Florida to use as a model. She noted the intent of this ordinance was to protect the integrity of neighborhoods and to maintain respect for the existing industry, and was beneficial for the payment of appropriate taxes, including with regard to homestead exemption laws. Commissioner Heyman noted for the record the County Commission had already addressed issues with the Tax Collector relating to Homestead Exemption Criterion pursuant to the State of Florida and assessed a taxing formula for TDT Platform Company to collect fees going to Hotel/Motel Association, to bring in additional revenue for the community. Commissioner Heyman commended the work of the County Attorney’s Office in providing assistance in this project and all other parties who contributed to this proposal. She noted the steps taken through negotiations and the need to move forward although there were several pending issues that had to be addressed to ensure it worked well with Legislation. Chairwoman Sosa commended Commissioner Heyman for her leadership in working on these needed regulations for vacation rentals. She noted she believed residential areas should not become a place for businesses and she understood the issues if there were no regulations. In response to Chairwoman Sosa’s question regarding whether the use of residential homes for business would result in the loss of homestead exemption, Assistant County Attorney James Kirtley advised there was a statute allowing some amount of rental over a period of 30-60 days over a two year period; therefore if a homeowner was not compliant, they were at risk of losing their homestead exemption. Chairwoman Sosa emphasized the need for law enforcement. She noted that in moving forward to approve regulations, the Property Appraiser’s Office should be provided the tools they needed in order to pursue homeowners who were renting, but not abiding by the terms of the rules being proposed. She spoke of recent incidents that were life threatening during a rental from a homeowner. Chairwoman Sosa also spoke of anticipated need for funding and assistance from law enforcement to ensure safety in the community as well as this industry. Chairwoman Sosa urged all parties involved to ensure all regulations were met in paying a certificate of use and the homestead exemption component would be pursuant to the Florida Statute. She also noted the importance of code enforcement because some homeowners would not report the rental of their homes and there should be increased penalty fees as well as prohibited renting for repeated offenders in specifically residential areas, rather than a simple fee. Chairwoman Sosa also commented on the need to conduct background checks on renters to ensure safety of homeowners as well as the neighborhood. Chairwoman Sosa discussed the following to go along with this ordinance: pursuant to the Florida statute that allowed a homeowner with homestead exemption to rent for either 30 or 60 days over a two year period, taking away the homeowner’s homestead exemption the day after the allowed period expired; the need to impose a penalty stronger than $100 per offense and perhaps, when this ordinance was brought before the BCC in the future, adding stronger penalties such as that after the second offense, the offender be prohibited from renting out the home in violation and not regain homestead exemption for a certain number of years in addition to levying them the $2,500 fine. She commented on recent calls received from residents who were concerned about neighbors who had long term rentals for over 30 days, which limited their children’s outside activities. Chairwoman Sosa reiterated she opposed allowing these vacation rentals in the residential area; however, she respected the rights of others; therefore she would agree to this proposal under these terms. She noted she would be closely monitoring the departments involved, such as the Property Appraiser, Police Department, and Code Enforcement, as well as violators who did not purchase a certificate of use. Chairwoman Sosa asked Commissioner Heyman to ensure that she either made the online process very structured, in order to provide full protection, or that she prohibited it completely, because some residents may attempt to disregard this policy or not acquire a certificate of use. Chairwoman Sosa noted that she herself would prohibit the online process because; more verification was needed on who would be renting the property. Chairwoman Sosa stated she did not have an opportunity to review the entire proposal, including language regarding the peer to peer entity providing notice to users regarding requirements. She spoke about the lack of consistent representation from Airbnb, noting this was why she believed strong regulations were needed. Chairwoman Sosa noted she would support those regulations, specifically high penalty fees and suspensions of rental privileges for repeated violations. She noted she did not support the existing online process because a stronger process needed to be put in place. Chairwoman Sosa recommended that Commissioner Heyman include in her proposed ordinance that the Police Department should report cases they responded to that were related to Airbnb so that a log of the addresses and the nature of incidents could be available in order to track incidents to protect the homeowners. Commissioner Barreiro referred to comments made by Chairwoman Sosa regarding the reporting of incidents by police. He noted when the police reported incidents, they did not report incidents as short-term rentals, but only as residential or neighborhood disturbances; therefore, short-term rentals should be a specific category of incidents reported by the police, so that short-term rental incidents could be identified and responded to appropriately. Commissioner Barreiro noted his district was the epicenter of rentals. He expressed concern that issues arose when small condos had no management or security on-site, and when rented single-family homes had neither an owner on-site, nor a Homeowner’s Association (HOA). He noted that this issue involved more than short-term rentals, noting it involved housing affordability in the community. Commissioner Barreiro indicated that homeowners renting out their homes year-round realized that by evicting tenants and not renewing their leases, and putting the homes on a platform back into the community, they could increase their profits. He said this was greatly increasing rental prices, because the number of units in the community was greatly decreased. He noted in his district, the number of entire homes being rented on the foregoing platforms was equal almost, or fell very short of the number of homes listed that were occupied by homeowners. Commissioner Barreiro spoke about when homeowners have wanted to rent out legally constructed efficiencies or apartments year-round, but the zoning code has not permitted them to do so in a single family residential area. He questioned how, then, people were being allowed to rent out apartments on the foregoing platforms, and indicated things should be fair. In response to Commissioner Barreiro’s question regarding whether the County Code was being disregarded concerning the foregoing rentals, Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell advised she did not believe this ordinance would circumvent existing regulations. She referred to handwritten page 9, 33-28(A)(2) in the middle of the paragraph and read the following: ….these regulations shall be in addition to, and shall not supplant other provisions in this Code and the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) that may apply to vacation rentals. In the event of a conflict the more restrictive provision shall control. Referring to what she said she believed was Commissioner Barreiro’s example of illegal construction; Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell indicated that regulations against illegal construction in residential areas to create essentially two homes would continue to apply. Commissioner Barreiro clarified that his example involved legal construction. Because, he said, a house with two kitchens could legally be constructed, but just could not be rented out, because of the issue of homestead exemption. He asked who was allowed to rent and who was not allowed to rent, according to the areas residences were in and the types of the residences. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell noted that this ordinance addressed zoning that created the CU process, and did not address issues regarding homestead exemption. She said regulations existed regarding, for example, illegal multi-family constructions versus single-family constructions. She noted that perhaps the Deputy Director of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) could address how those regulations were currently enforced. Ms. Lourdes Gomez, Deputy Director, RER, noted in terms of the multi-family issue the County would still be enforcing against any illegal construction of efficiencies that would qualify under the prima facia multi-family enforcement evidence criteria currently used. She also noted she believed the distinction, at least in this case, was that the residences should not have been modified in any manner from what had been independently legally permitted. She said this would be part of the inspection process to accompany the Certificate of Use (CU). Mr. Nathan Kogon, Assistant Director for Development Services, RER, stated that the County Code mandated that either during a site plan review, or during the building permit process, only one set of cooking facilities was allowed for an individual house; therefore, a single family unit with a separate entrance, cooking facility, and bathroom would not be defined as a single family home; therefore, a unit that had the secondary kitchen facility would be illegal under the Code. In response to Commissioner Barreiro’s comment that granny flats (parent’s quarters) were legal, Mr. Kogon noted that in estate density a separate guest house was allowed, but in typical residential (RU-1) zoning areas, in townhomes and duplexes, no secondary unit could be constructed; therefore no secondary unit consisting of a cooking facility and a private area could be rented out; a bedroom would have to be rented out instead. Following additional questions from Commissioner Barreiro, Ms. Gomez noted renting a bedroom for a year would not fall under the criteria for this ordinance because an annual lease arrangement was not part of what the County was a party to regulating. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell responded to Chairwoman Sosa asked whether commercial and industrial areas could be regulated, and residential areas exempted, thereby prohibiting in residential areas the renting that was of concern, other than what the Florida Statutes said. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell advised that in the residential areas it would be a type of fact-intensive analysis of what was currently allowed, and to implement a complete ban of short-term rentals in the residential areas, it may be difficult to make such a broad statement. She noted people were currently illegally taking vacation for a year while claiming homestead exemption. Responding to Chairwoman Sosa regarding the rentals in residential areas could not be restricted only to what the Florida Statutes permitted Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell advised that homestead exemption could be forcefully enforced in residential areas, and the Florida Statutes allowed the County to enforce all pre-existing regulations before 2011 and to pass new regulations within a certain framework. She also advised this ordinance fit into that framework. Following further comments made by Commissioner Barreiro concerning issues that he said he saw forthcoming concerning conflicts with , regarding people who had and did not have homestead exemption, Chairwoman Sosa asked whether a workshop could be arranged for the entire Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Commissioner Heyman noted the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, and County Attorney’s Office had already worked together to address homestead exemption and had included the section previously mentioned by Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell. She also noted that on handwritten page 12, in the Sub Section I the language read that “the responsible party has received information explaining that using the property as a vacation rental could result in loss of the homestead exemption, and has provided such information to the property owner.” Commissioner Heyman further noted there was another section in this proposal requiring rental to be within that home itself; therefore this document was legally sufficient according to the County Attorney’s Office. She noted this proposed ordinance clearly stated the regulations and the consequences if they were not followed for the short-term vacation rentals, and this ordinance would not change homestead exemption, zoning, or the CDMP. Commissioner Heyman also noted the existing violations that were caused by the amount of time and use of property had already been vetted out with the Property Appraiser’s Office, which had a letter that would be disseminated as part of the CU on any contractual agreement with any platform company, and not exclusive to Airbnb. She further noted this was put in place to ensure the law was followed. She noted the Property Appraiser made clear the consequences pertaining to the loss of the homestead exemption status. In response to Chairwoman Sosa’s recommended amendment to the language on Page 12 Section (i) to change the language to “will result in loss of Homestead Exemption” (HE) rather than “would,” Commissioner Heyman noted the issue with using the recommended language was it depended on the facts of the violation as to whether the HE would be lost. She emphasized the law was not being changed, but this proposed ordinance was to ensure the public understood the violations, which would be also displayed for guests to understand, and be part of the CU. She said people had to be registered to even get the CU. Commissioner Heyman requested the EDTC hear the amendments that were recommended by the County Attorney’s Office as well as the Property Appraiser’s Office. Property Appraiser Pedro Garcia noted one of the main concerns during the previous discussion on regulations was the CU component of this process, which was one way to monitor homeowners to ensure they did not use their homes as rentals with the HE. He also noted the provision to rent the homes for 30 days for two consecutive years; however, any rental activity after that time the homeowner would lose their HE. Mr. Garcia noted the need for regulations to be in place with the CU in order to be informed of who was renting their home; because there were 460,000 families currently in the HE program. He stated the majority of information was obtained through the residents licenses, and the renters who stayed for a week would not change their address, resulting in no other means of control, except for the CU. Commissioner Heyman noted this information was documented in this ordinance and referred to the publication of notice from the Property Appraiser’s Office, which she had a copy to display. She spoke of the clarity of the notice that was in multiple languages to ensure the public was aware of these regulations. Mr. Garcia noted the main concern was to avoid people committing fraud, which would result in the loss of their HE and Save Our Homes benefits. Discussion ensued among EDTC members and staff regarding persons who did not purchase a CU, and the timeframe for eligibility to maintain domicile in people’s residence that allowed them to get HE, which would be the actual violation, because there were people who had rentals and were not part of this platform company. Commissioner Heyman pointed out this was related to only short-term vacation rentals and did not relate to the existing Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Code Enforcement problem along with the Property Appraiser issue. Mr. Garcia noted the intent was not to take away the HE from homeowners, but to protect them by providing information through the different media sources because there were many elderly persons with HE. He spoke about the population of people in programs who paid a small percentage of taxes that was lesser than the value of their property and could not afford to pay the current amount if the HE was lost. Following further discussion Commissioner Heyman noted most of the concerns mentioned in today’s (6/15) EDTC were addressed in the amendments and the critical issue at hand was enforcement. She also noted there was an added accountability regulation. She spoke of the negotiating process in meeting with the parties involved. Commissioner Heyman stated this proposal addressed the following concerns and would stand on the comprehensive impact without negatively impacting the way property taxes were assessed the CDMP, or the integrity of a neighborhood that was zoned a certain way, or would this supersede a municipality, which was why it applied to unincorporated municipal service areas (UMSA) only. Commissioner Heyman spoke about the proposal and the CU component on posting that required no business be conducted with the County without a CU and that they collect the taxes on behalf of the County and that they have the CU signed before conducting business or posting, and that they must post in an obvious place and have it recorded for the County. Commissioner Heyman noted this ordinance was to legalize, with regulations, an existing practice, and tax a fee paid by the hotel, in addition documenting violators without changing zoning, HE, or land use. Commissioner Heyman noted she concurred with the suggestion made by Commissioner Barreiro and noted acceptance of the amendment to qualify a residential call for service to the law enforcement, to document whether it was a vacation rental, which would be an important measuring tool. In response to Commissioner Heyman’s comment regarding acceptance of this amendment, Mr. Tom Martinelli noted the phrase “home sharing’ was not frequently used and he was concerned whether the police officers would be able to determine the home was being used a short-term rental versus a traditional residence. Commissioner Heyman noted once the report came in the company could validate whether or not it was their firm or another platform on a CU that may be in violation of taxes. Responding to Chairwoman Sosa’s comment regarding the language in the written amendment (2) regarding parking and the need to specify the number of parking spaces allowed in the residential areas for these vacation rentals, Commissioner Heyman noted this written amendment was only a portion of the item. Chairwoman Sosa also noted she could not support the written amendment (3) regarding the CU being renewed every two years because all businesses were required to renew annually with a renewal fee. Following an extensive discussion between Chairwoman Sosa and Commissioner Heyman regarding the written amendments presented related to the parking and the CU renewal, Ms. Lourdes Gomez agreed to an annual inspection and noted renewal of the CU requiring a renewal fee would be appropriate. She noted the renewal fee amount was included in the corresponding document. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Heyman and Mr. Martinelli regarding the annual renewal fee; the decision to move forward was agreed upon by eliminating (3) amendment language for “biennial renewal….” Commissioner Heyman explained there were some steps being taken to address these issues across the States. Assistant County Attorney James Kirtley read the following amended language to the foregoing proposed 1G1 Substitute: 1. At the top of handwritten page 7, an additional WHEREAS clause regarding online hosting platforms shall be added, as follows: WHEREAS, vacation rentals via online hosting platforms are an emerging sector providing hosts and guests a medium for home-sharing; and 2. On handwritten page 8, the WHEREAS clause at the top of the page shall be amended to include reference to all residential neighborhoods and all types of parking, as follows: WHEREAS, if unregulated, vacation rentals can create negative compatibility impacts in residential neighborhoods, including inappropriate commercialization and disruption of the character of single-family neighborhoods, excessive noise, on-street parking that overwhelms use by local residents, and accumulation of trash, as well as diminished public health, safety, and welfare; and 3. On handwritten pages 18 and 19, the provision requiring the Certificate of Use and related information to be posted onsite shall be amended such that it must be available in a conspicuous place within the vacation rental, but need not be posted at, or near, the entrance to the rental, as follows: Posting of Certificate of Use whenever a property is being used as a vacation rental, the Certificate of Use required by this section shall be posted on the back of, or next to, the main entrance door on the inside of the vacation rental and shall include, at a minimum, the name, address, and phone number of the responsible party and the maximum occupancy of the vacation rental. Assistant County Attorney Kirtley requested that the EDTC allow the County Attorney’s Office to prepare the amended language regarding tracking police calls to determine whether those were related to short-term vacation rentals, before the second reading of this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Heyman noted she would join Commissioners Sosa and Barreiro as sponsors of the amendment that has been part of today’s (6/15) dialogue. Commissioner Heyman commented on other areas within this item that needed to be addressed, such as obligations of responsible parties. Commissioner Heyman requested from the Property Appraiser’s Office that the poster be in three languages, rather than two, and the platform company and any company would have to be in compliance with these laws. Commissioner Heyman spoke of the options regarding the suggestion made by Chairwoman Sosa to create increased penalty fees for noncompliance, such as prohibition to continue business, with consideration being given to affordability of fees. She also spoke of the steps that would be taken, such as $100.00 fine on first offense that would increase to $1,000.00 on the second offense and the final penalty would be $2,500.00 along with being removed from the service provision. Commissioner Heyman further explained once the homeowner has reached this level on non-compliancy a CU would not be permitted. Following the discussion between Chairwoman Sosa and Commissioner Heyman regarding the language concerning the 24 month period between the first offense and the second offense and the penalties, Chairwoman Sosa requested that the amended language read that after the third offense the homeowner would no longer be in business in that industry and the County would enforce this prohibition. Mr. Tom Martinelli noted Airbnb would be well committed to restructure their policy; however, Airbnb was only one platform among many. He noted for clarification that once three violations of any kind were verified the homeowner would be prohibited from doing business in this industry. In closing Commissioner Heyman spoke about the ongoing efforts of all parties involved working together and the amended language to be prepared by the County Attorney’s Office concerning parking and any other changes that were needed for the short-term vacation rentals in residential areas in order to move forward. In response to Chairwoman Sosa’s comments regarding the need to review the component of this item related to sexual offenders and to require notification of residents in any of the vacation rentals, which would line up with the existing law, Commissioner Heyman noted the language had already been cited based on the existing law. Hearing no further questions or comments the EDTC proceeded to vote that the foregoing proposed resolution be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation with Committee amendments to add... - Whereas clause regarding online hosting platforms; - Whereas clause regarding the negative compatibility impacts that vacation rentals can created in residential neighborhoods; and - Provide that the Certificate of Use and related information shall be available in a conspicuous place within each vacation rental, but need not be posted at, or near the entrance." Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal reminded the Committee the motion on the floor was to forward both Agenda Item 1G1 Substitute Amended and Agenda Item 2A to the Board of County Commission with a favorable recommendation.

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULATION OF VACATION RENTALS; CREATING SECTION 33-28 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF USE AND ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS FOR VACATION RENTALS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF USE AND RENEWAL; PROVIDING VACATION RENTAL STANDARDS AND DUTIES OF PEER-TO-PEER OR PLATFORM ENTITIES AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES; REQUIRING A BOND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING VACATION RENTALS TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN EXISTING CODE PROVISIONS AND IMPOSING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL CODE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY, SIGNS, NOISE, PARKING AND PETS; PROHIBITING A SEXUAL PREDATOR OR OFFENDER FROM OCCUPYING A VACATION RENTAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM ALLOWING A SEXUAL PREDATOR OR OFFENDER TO OCCUPY A VACATION RENTAL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AMENDING SECTION 8CC; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL PENALTIES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, establishes a regulatory framework for lodging establishments, including vacation rentals and transient public lodging establishments; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 509 defines vacation rentals as �transient public lodging establishments� that consist of �any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings which is rented to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests�; and
>>WHEREAS, vacation rentals via online hosting platforms are an emerging sector providing hosts and guests a medium for home-sharing; and<<1
WHEREAS, despite the name, vacation rentals are not rented solely by vacationers, but may be used by travelers who find themselves in a particular locale for a variety of reasons and who wish to stay in a short-term residential rental; and
WHEREAS, vacation rentals must be registered and licensed with the Florida Department of Business Regulation in order to operate within the state; and
WHEREAS, although Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, restricts local governments from enacting regulations after June 1, 2011 that prohibit vacation rentals or that regulate the duration or frequency of such rentals, the statute also provides that local governments may continue to enforce regulations that were in existence as of June 1, 2011, and local governments may also enact new regulations on vacation rentals that do not pertain to duration and frequency; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-4C of the County�s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (�CDMP�) provides, �residential neighborhoods shall be protected from intrusion by uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety, tranquility, character, and overall welfare of the neighborhood by creating such impacts as excessive density, noise, light, glare, odor, vibration, dust or traffic�; and

WHEREAS, the CDMP also provides that, with limited exceptions, commercial uses are prohibited in areas designated as Residential Communities, which include single-family and multi-family areas, and that hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments shall not be approved in the Estate or Low Density residential categories; and
WHEREAS, these regulations in the CDMP have been in effect since long before June 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, if unregulated, vacation rentals can create negative compatibility impacts in residential neighborhoods, including inappropriate commercialization and disruption of the character of >>residential<< [[single-family]] neighborhoods, excessive noise, [[on-street]] parking that overwhelms use by local residents, and accumulation of trash, as well as diminished public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, consistent with state law and the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, Miami-Dade County may also enact a variety of regulations on vacation rentals including, but not limited to, regulations pertaining to zoning, consumer protection, and code compliance and
WHEREAS, these regulations provide requirements that apply to those who wish to offer and use vacation rentals, as well as to the platform entities that facilitate vacation rentals in this community; and
WHEREAS, to protect residential neighborhoods in the County from disruptive and incompatible uses and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community, this Board wishes to enact regulations pertaining to vacation rentals; and
WHEREAS, these regulations are designed to preserve the quiet nature and atmosphere of residential areas and ensure to the County�s residents the tranquility and peaceful enjoyment of their neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, at the same time, these regulations seek to provide law-abiding residents the opportunity to offer and use vacation rentals in an orderly manner, consistent with state and local law and with neighborhood character; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to promote compliance with the County code for those who wish to offer and use vacation rentals in this community,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby approved and incorporated into this ordinance as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Section 33-28 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows: 2
>>Sec. 33-28. Vacation Rentals.

(A) Applicability and purpose.

(1) This section shall apply in the unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade County.

(2) The purpose of this section is to provide additional regulations pertaining to vacation rentals to preserve the quiet nature and atmosphere of residential areas and to ensure to the County�s residents the tranquility and peaceful enjoyment of their neighborhoods. These regulations shall be in addition to, and shall not supplant, other provisions in this code and the CDMP that may apply to vacation rentals; and in the event of a conflict, the more restrictive provision shall control. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to create an enforceable right or private right of action against the County.
(B) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Peer-to-peer or platform entity shall mean any person, service, business, company, marketplace, or other entity that, for a fee or other consideration, provides property owners and responsible parties a platform or means to offer vacation rentals to transient occupants, whether through the internet or other means.

(2) Property owner shall mean the person who, or entity that, owns the property being used or occupied as a vacation rental.

(3) Responsible party shall mean the person or entity authorized by the property owner to obtain a Certificate of Use for a vacation rental, and who will be:

(a) responsible for ensuring compliance with all regulations related to vacation rentals; and

(b) available to respond 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to any issue that arises relating to the vacation rental.

The property owner may serve as responsible party.

(4) Transient occupant shall mean any person who rents or occupies any dwelling unit or residence or part thereof for less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, and any guest or invitee of such person.

(5) Vacation rental shall mean any dwelling unit or residence, including, but not limited to, any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or apartment building, that is rented in whole or in part to a transient occupant for a period of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place that may be rented to a transient occupant, but shall not include a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast as defined in this code and referenced in the CDMP. For purposes of this section, the term vacation rental is synonymous with the term short-term residential rental.

(C) Certificate of Use Required. No property owner, responsible party, or peer-to-peer or platform entity shall offer as a vacation rental, or allow any person to rent or occupy as a vacation rental, any property in whole or in part within the unincorporated area of Miami-Dade County, unless a Certificate of Use has first been obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(1) Application. A complete Certificate of Use application shall be submitted to the Department online or in hard copy. The application must be signed under oath or affirmation, and shall include the following:

(a) The address and legal description of the vacation rental property;

(b) Name, address, and phone number of the property owner;

(c) Name, address, and phone number of the responsible party;

(d) Name and contact information for the peer-to-peer or platform entity or entities on which the vacation rental is, or will be, listed for rent;

(e) Statement that the responsible party is, or will be, remitting all applicable local Miami-Dade County business and tourist taxes; or that a peer-to-peer or platform entity through which vacation rentals are booked will be remitting all such taxes associated with the vacation rental on the responsible party�s behalf;

(f) Statement that the responsible party has the permission of the property owner and authority to offer the property as a vacation rental and act as the responsible party;

(g) Statement as to whether the entire property, or just a part thereof (i.e., a room or rooms), will be used as a vacation rental; and

(h) Statement that insurance coverage will be in effect at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental to cover liability for injury or harm to transient occupants or other invitees, and acknowledging that a standard homeowner�s or renter�s insurance policy may not necessarily provide such liability coverage while the property is used as a vacation rental;

(i) Statement acknowledging that the responsible party has received information explaining that using the property as a vacation rental could result in loss of the Homestead Exemption, and has provided such information to the property owner;

(j) Statement indicating how many times, and for how many days in all, the property was used as a vacation rental within the previous calendar year;

(k) Statement acknowledging that the vacation rental must be registered with the Florida Department of Revenue, or successor agency, for purposes of collecting and remitting applicable state taxes and all such state taxes have been, or will be, paid;

(l) Statement acknowledging that a vacation rental license, issued by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, or successor agency, must be obtained; and

(m) Statement acknowledging that the property is, and will be at all times during which it is used as a vacation rental, maintained in compliance with the vacation rental standards set forth in subsection (D) below.

(2) Supporting documentation. The responsible party shall maintain all required licenses, records, and other documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the statements and information required by subsection (1) above are true and accurate. All such licenses, records, and other documentation shall be provided upon request, and failure to do so may result in the denial, suspension, or revocation of the Certificate of Use.

(3) Providing false information. Providing false or misleading information in an application for a Certificate of Use is grounds to deny or revoke the Certificate of Use. A determination that false or misleading information was provided in an application is appealable to a hearing examiner in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 8CC or section 1-5, or both.

(4) Annual renewal. The Certificate of Use shall be renewed annually. A Certificate of Use may not be renewed if there are any outstanding fines or liens for violations of this code.

(5) Inspection. Upon the issuance or renewal of a Certificate of Use, the vacation rental property shall be subject to inspection to ensure compliance with all applicable code requirements. At the time of such inspection, the responsible party shall provide all licenses, records, and other documentation sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all requirements of this section.

(6) Enforcement history.

(a) When reviewing an application to obtain or renew a Certificate of Use, the Department shall consider the violation history of the property identified in the application. If the violation history shows three or more violations of this section within the preceding 24 months, the Department shall not issue or renew the Certificate of Use unless:

(i) all outstanding violations or liens are first satisfied and corrected; and

(ii) a bond in the amount of $10,000.00 is provided to the Department, in the form approved by the Director. The bond shall be subject to forfeiture for future violations, as set forth in this section.

(b) When the violation history shows three or more violations of this section within the preceding 24 months, the Department shall notify the peer-to-peer or platform entity, if known, of the property at which the violations have occurred, and the dates of the violations.

(c) When calculating whether a vacation rental property has three or more violations within the preceding 24 months, if one or more unresolved citations that will affect the decision to issue or renew the Certificate of Use are pending, the Director may issue or renew a Certificate of Use on a provisional basis and for a limited time, which may be extended by the Director for good cause shown.

(D) Vacation Rental Standards. The following vacation rental standards shall govern vacation rentals in unincorporated Miami-Dade County:

(1) Duties of peer-to-peer or platform entity. For each vacation rental listed or offered, a peer-to-peer or platform entity shall:

(a) provide notice of the requirements of this section to any person or entity listing or offering a vacation rental on its service or platform;

(b) only provide a listing for, or collect a fee for listing, a vacation rental that has a valid Certificate of Use in accordance with this section. Compliance with this subsection may be shown where the peer-to-peer or platform entity:

(i) requires the responsible party to input a Certificate of Use number as a precondition to listing or offering a vacation rental on its platform;

(ii) provides the Department on a quarterly basis a list containing the Certificate of Use number and the listing identification number and zip code associated therewith for all listings on the platform in unincorporated Miami-Dade County; and

(iii) removes any listing from the platform upon notification from the Department that a Certificate of Use number associated with the listing is invalid or expired;

(c) include language in rental documents to discourage the secondary subletting of vacation rentals;

(d) maintain records demonstrating that the requirements of this subsection have been satisfied, and such records shall be subject to inspection by the Department upon request; and

(e) make available to the County for inspection upon request all records relating to any suspected violations of state or local law associated with any vacation rental property in unincorporated Miami-Dade County.

(2) Duties of responsible party. For each vacation rental, the responsible party shall:

(a) provide written notice to transient occupants, prior to occupancy of the vacation rental, of the vacation rental standards set forth herein and other applicable laws, ordinances, or regulations concerning noise, public nuisance, vehicle parking, solid waste collection, and common area usage. This information shall also be made available to each transient occupant inside the subject property;

(b) provide notice to prospective transient occupants at the time the subject property is listed as a vacation rental of any limitations on the property pertaining to access for the disabled;

(c) provide notice to the homeowner�s association or condominium/cooperative association or board, if any, that the subject property will be used as a vacation rental and adhere to all policies, rules, and regulations of such association or board pertaining to vacation rentals;

(d) ensure compliance with all provisions of this section, including the vacation rental standards set forth herein, and promptly address and report any violations of this section or of such other law or regulation of which the responsible party knows or should know to the Department or law enforcement, as appropriate, as well as to the peer-to-peer or platform entity;

(e) ensure that any violations regarding the rental of the property are able to be promptly addressed and resolved 24 hours a day/7 days per week; and

(f) maintain a register with names and dates of stay of all guests, including but not limited to all transient occupants and their invitees, which shall be open to inspection by the County.

(3) Maximum occupancy. Maximum overnight occupancy for vacation rentals shall be up to a maximum of two persons per bedroom, plus two additional persons per property, up to a maximum of 12 persons, excluding children under three years of age. At all other times, maximum occupancy for vacation rentals shall not exceed the maximum overnight occupancy of the vacation rental plus four additional persons per property, up to a maximum of 16 persons, excluding children under three years of age. For purposes of this subsection, �overnight� shall mean from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following day. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at no time may the occupancy of a vacation rental exceed the maximum occupant load for the property under the Florida Building Code.

(4) Responsible party onsite. The property on which a vacation rental is operated shall be occupied by the responsible party during the time it is rented to any transient occupant; or, if not so occupied by the responsible party during the time it is used as a vacation rental, the property shall be a residence in which the responsible party resides for more than six months per calendar year.

(5) Solid waste handling and containment. Solid waste containers sufficient to handle the maximum occupancy permitted shall be maintained in accordance with chapter 15. All regulations regarding screening and storage of solid waste containers shall apply to vacation rentals. For purposes of this section, and as required in section 15-5, all solid waste containers shall be placed at curbside or other designated collection area only on scheduled collection days, no later than 7:00 a.m., and shall be removed therefrom that same day once collection has occurred.

(6) Advertising and signs. Signs shall only be allowed to the extent permitted by the regulations in the code applicable to the relevant zoning district. Any advertisements or signs pertaining to vacation rentals that are inconsistent with the requirements, restrictions, and regulations of the Certificate of Use or these vacation rental standards shall be deemed prima facie evidence in any enforcement action that a vacation rental is being operated in violation of this section.

(7) Sexual offenders and sexual predators.

(a) If the vacation rental property is within 2,500 feet of a school, pursuant to section 21-283 it shall be a violation to allow any person to occupy the property with knowledge that such person is a registered sexual offender or registered sexual predator in any jurisdiction. The responsible party shall be required to obtain confirmation of a nationwide search from the Miami-Dade County Police Department or other law enforcement agency that the prospective transient occupant or occupants is not a registered sexual offender or sexual predator as a result of a conviction of a sexual offense, as defined in section 21-280. The responsible party may call the Miami-Dade County Answer Center (311) to obtain assistance or referrals to determine whether a prospective transient occupant is a sexual offender or predator and to determine whether a residence is 2,500 feet from a particular school.

(b) If the vacation rental property is within 2,500 feet of a school, pursuant to section 21-281 it shall be a violation of this section for a sexual offender or sexual predator to occupy the property for a period of four or more days in any month.

(8) Posting of Certificate of Use. Whenever a property is being used as a vacation rental, the Certificate of Use required by this section shall be<< >>available in a conspicuous location that is clearly visible to guests within<< [[posted on the back of, or next to, the main entrance door on the inside of]] >>the vacation rental and shall include, at a minimum, the name, address, and phone number of the responsible party and the maximum occupancy of the vacation rental.

(9) Parking and vehicles. All parking must comply with article VII of this chapter, and all other applicable sections of this code. In addition, all vehicles associated with the vacation rental, whether in the possession or control of the property owner, responsible party, or transient occupant, shall only be parked within a driveway or in a designated parking area on the subject property; or, where there is no such driveway or designated parking area, vehicles shall only be parked on the street or swale directly in front of the subject property. Transient occupants shall not be permitted to park more than two vehicles at any one time on the subject property or on the street or swale during the rental period.

(10) Noise. All transient occupants shall abide by section 21-28 of this code, which prohibits unreasonably loud, excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise. In addition, outdoor amplified sound at a vacation rental shall not be permitted at any time.

(11) Public nuisance. The responsible party and all transient occupants shall abide by all applicable state and local public nuisance laws and ordinances, including, but not limited to, article XIIIA of this code, which prohibits any place or premise from being used as the site for the unlawful sale or delivery of controlled substances, prostitution, youth and street gang activity, gambling, illegal sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or lewd or lascivious behavior that adversely affects the public health, safety, morals, and welfare.

(12) Pets. If the responsible party permits transient occupants to have pets at the vacation rental, such pets shall be at all times secured within the property lines or on a leash, but shall not be tethered. Continual nuisance barking by pets is prohibited. The keeping of pets shall be subject to the regulations of this chapter and chapter 5 of this code regarding animals.

(13) Compliance with applicable laws. In addition to the foregoing, the responsible party and all transient occupants shall comply with all other applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, rules, and standards, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to anti-discrimination, disability, and fair housing to the extent applicable.

(E) Enforcement. The requirements of this section may be enforced in accordance with the following:

(1) Penalties. Any person operating a vacation rental without a Certificate of Use or in violation of the vacation rental standards or any other provisions in this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 8CC-10 and section 1-5, or both, of this code and to all other enforcement measures authorized in this code or by other applicable law.

(2) Forfeiture of bond.

(a) Where a bond is required to obtain or renew a Certificate of Use, if the vacation rental property is cited for a violation of this section within 12 months of providing the bond, and that citation is later resolved adversely to the owner or responsible party, then the bond shall be deemed forfeited, and the Certificate of Use for that vacation rental shall be revoked and may not be reissued for 12 months.

(b) If there are no violations for 12 months after providing the security, the Department shall release the bond upon written request from the responsible party. Until the responsible party obtains release, the bond shall continue to be subject to forfeiture for future violations.

(3) Joint and several liability. The property owner of the vacation rental property shall be liable for any violations of this section, any rule or regulation promulgated under this section, or any order of the Director made under this section. In addition, whenever two or more persons commit such a violation, each violator shall be jointly and severally liable for any fines or other damages assessed. This applies to situations where a property owner, responsible party, peer-to-peer or platform entity, or transient occupant, or any combination thereof, are together responsible for a violation of this section.<<

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 Code sections, except to the extent that different types of violations of the same Code section may carry different civil penalties. For each Code section listed in the schedule of civil penalties, the entirety of that section may be enforced by the mechanism provided in this Chapter 8CC, 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 Code, the relevant Code section must be examined.

* Code
* Section
Description of Violation
Civil?
Penalty?

* * *

33-25.1
Illegally establishing a home office
500.00
>>33-28
Failure to obtain Certificate of Use for vacation rental

First offense

$100

Second offense
$1,000.00

Third offense and subsequent violations thereafter
$2,500.00
33-28
Violation of Vacation Rental Standard or any other provision of section 33-28

First offense
$100

Second offense occurring within 24 months of first offense
$1,000

Third offense and subsequent offense occurring within 24 months of the most recent two preceding offenses
$2,500<<
33-29
Illegally maintaining or storing construction materials or equipment without active building permit
200.00

* * *

Section 4. The provisions of section 33-28(C) shall not take effect until ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED:

1 Committee amendments are indicated as follows: Words double stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] are deleted, words double underlined and/or >>double arrowed<< are added.

2 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.