I have two cards. Nick, come on up, Nick. Give me your name. I don't want to mispronounce your public hearing. Hold on. Nick, hold on for a second. These are public hearing. I'm going to get to you during public hearing. Let's go with Leonard Hoffman. Leonard Hoffman. Reason for my opportunity to be heard. Leonard Hoffman. I think it says, yes, Leonard Hoffman. 1603 Northwest 7th Avenue. Leonard. Leonard, I'm not notorious for keeping this open long. Lenny? Big Len? Len dog? I mean, I don't know what else to do. All right. Well, you filled out a card, and you say on the top, make it off topic. Great. Okay. All right. Well, public hearing is now closed. All right. Now, Madam Attorney. Show Commissioner Regulado, Vice Chair here. Show Commissioner Steinberg here. Commissioner Steinberg, thank you for joining us. You have an item. Let's go into the agenda. Good morning, Mr. Chair. The items to be considered today by this committee are those listed in the printed final official agenda and in the changes memo, which includes the addition of a 1G1 substitute. A motion to set the agenda is in order. I need a motion. So moved by Commissioner Bass-Chair. Second. Second. By Regulado. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Show the agenda set. All right. Let's take them all in order. Well, first, is there any, I guess we have, let's do the public hearings. It's an open public hearing on 1G1? Yes. 1G1 substitute? Yeah. This is an ordinance relating to the operation of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade County, creating Chapter 31, Article VIII of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, providing regulations for the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers, providing legislative intent, applicability, and definitions, amending Section 8CC10 of the Code, providing for enforcement by civil penalty, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. This is a public hearing item. All right. Public hearing is open on this item. I have three cards. One is Nick Garzilli. Come on up, Nick. And I felt like I was going to get it wrong, too. I was, it was a shot in the dark. All right. Give me your name, your address, and you have two minutes. Yes. My name is Nick Garzilli. My address is 224 23rd Street, Miami Beach. I'm here today to, well, talk about autonomous delivery vehicles and what is the future of autonomous delivery and how do we get more of these vehicles off of the streets. I am the founder and CEO of Chariot Living, and we are bringing Woosh to Miami-Dade. Woosh was developed out of Google. Google's Project Swift, and I have a partnership with Swift Cities. So the team at Google was solving their kind of campus and parking problems, and that's where they asked for information about how to fix things. And that's, that's Project Swift, and it was born out of that. And we have projects now around the world, Anaheim, Irvine, Tokyo Dome, Japan, but essentially these look like, look like cars, but they're, or look like gondolas. They are not a gondola. They're more like a car-sized vehicle that traveled on separate, elevated, grade-separated highways. And, you know, when I was thinking of the delivery drones, I mean, they whiz by you. Some of them are quite aggressive, and they're actually operated by, by kids in other countries. I don't know how old they are, really. But the more of a robust network that you have in a city, the more those drones can either go into another vehicle and then brought very close or literally into another building. So I would first, I'd like to thank the commission for looking at the problems associated with these delivery drones, but then to, to think one step ahead to what could be and what is the next, the next big thing, which is autonomous networks. So thank you very much. And I, I've, I've been making the rounds and been meeting a lot of, of our city leaders. And I see great interest and great opportunity to bring this to Miami-Dade. Thank you very much. Leonard Hoffman. Big Len? Lenny? That's so odd. Put out two cards and not show up. Okay, but Leonard? Okay. We're done. I would hit Leonard and Nicholas Pasquale. Nick, come on down. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Nicholas Pasquale to Alhambra Plaza. I am from Ballard Partners, and we represent Serve Robotics. First and foremost, I want to thank the sponsor, Commissioner Steinberg, has been phenomenal to work with her staff, has been great. You're just saying that because she's here. No, I always say that about her. We're in support of the item. Serve obviously wants to work with the county and make these autonomous vehicles, serving vehicles as efficient as possible. But there's two concerns that we have. One of them is the restriction on ads, being able to advertise on these bots. It's important to the revenue stream for the company. And our second concern is the 20-minute idle time. Currently, right now, most major cities across the country go to a 30-minute standard. So we would just like to match up with that across the cities within Miami-Dade County and across the nation. So thank you for your time and your consideration on this item. Thank you. All right. Public hearing on this. That's the last card I have. Does anybody else want to be heard on this? Okay. That's the last card I have. Public hearing on this item is now closed. Attorney? Do you want to read it or anything? The title has already been read. All right. Perfect. Mickey? Commissioner, you want to talk? Thank you. Yeah. So we brought this item forward, and we have worked with the industry to try to, from, as you see, the changes that we made from the original version to the substitute. Unfortunately, these delivery robots, while they may be well-intentioned, are causing a lot of havoc in a lot of areas. So this was an opportunity for us to really look at that and try to come up with some smart, comprehensive opportunities to regulate the robots. But in all seriousness, we do feel, I want to make something very clear. We're not preempting municipalities. If a municipality wants to have these delivery robot service providers, then they can enter and apply for a permit, and they can work directly with that municipality. A municipality can opt into our version of what we'd like to see regulated, or they can come up with their own version. If they want to advertise, that is within that municipality's purview to negotiate and discuss with the service provider. For the unincorporated areas, which right now they're not really in our unincorporated. They're really taking over a lot of the cities. But this is the future, potentially. So I'm trying to be proactive and lay the groundwork now so that we can have some good tools in the toolbox. We can always evaluate and look and see how this industry grows and how we need to maybe look at this again and make changes. I'm open to that. In terms of the idling time, the idling time currently is set for 20 minutes, meaning that, you know, they loiter. They sit there. They're waiting. They're in right-of-ways. Originally, the original version, I think, had it 10 minutes. So we went to 20. If you, you know, it's not a deal-breaker, but we want them not to be there for extended periods of time just taking up space in our right-of-ways, our sidewalks, our crosswalks. We also looked at the speed limits to make sure that they're not causing havoc to actually hurt pedestrians or those in wheelchairs. We wanted to really try to find the groundwork for something that would make sense. Okay. Very loud. Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Steinberg. So these are all over my district. And I will say I think there is a positive to it because what a lot of folks, including, like, my neighborhood, like now if you order food in my neighborhood, you're going to get a bot. You're not going to get, like, a human. It's very rare that you're going to get a human. Usually when you order food, you get to choose, and if there's a robotic option, you get the robotic option. I will say that a lot of restaurants prefer the robotic option because when a human picks it up, a human will pick up, like, 10 restaurants, and then everything will be cold. The robot, you know, has temperature control, and there's a lot of different things. So there's a lot of restaurants in my district that prefer the bots. I think they're kind of cute. I haven't found them to be too fast, but my concern with the loitering is not so much how long they loiter but where they loiter. Yeah, what happens is they congregate, like, in a spot. So after they're done with their job, they, like, you know, they find each other, and they kind of, like, hang out together while they're waiting to get picked up. They're like children. They just, like, hang out. They're kind of cute when they do it, and people take pictures of them, by the way. It's, like, a big thing when people take pictures of them. But I'm more concerned as to where they do it than, like, how long they do it. The advertising, I'm not against the advertising, but I am concerned about the price point. So I think if they're allowed to advertise, and that helps with the price point, because one of the things that we're seeing with these food deliveries is that they get very expensive for restaurants. So that's something that I think we should consider at some point. I wouldn't say that they can't advertise. I think if we tie it to something, it's different because there are a lot of restaurants that are just not being able to do the food delivery. So my only concern on this is the impact that it would have on the restaurant industry. So I think it's great that you're meeting with the bot industry. That's fantastic. But I think we need to also talk to the restaurant industry who's using these things so that they can kind of weigh in on, like, how limiting this or complicating this. Because a lot of the folks that I have spoken to, they prefer the bots to other services because of the temperature control and, like, the security. Sure. No. Go ahead. Well. Since you're going to D.C., I wanted to take this opportunity to remind all of us that government can't resolve all problems. Hi, J.C. Yeah. You know, sometimes the private sector, that's why we're, you know, we can't control everything. So it's a nice gesture. It's something. There are things we got to do, which is, okay, set the rules. As far, look, I, you know, the maker, I'm assuming, and I'm not even going to ask her because Miami Beach probably has a problem with this. I'm sure they have a problem with everything. So the, you know, I'm fine. I understand if the idling is 30 minutes, there's got to be a reason for it. I don't know, Commissioner Regalado, whether they talk to each other. I remember that when they had, I think it was a number of cities, including where we're at now, when they had the bikes. Remember when people would ride their bikes and they'd leave them everywhere? And then somehow they said, okay, we're either going to pick them up or we've got to leave them one place. You know, that's kind of what it sounds like to me. So as long as we can, you know, be a step ahead and try to be understanding enough that the private sector, we're here to make conditions so it works. You know, and they, we can't, I love Commissioner Regalado. Price points are great, and especially with this economy, it would be a great gesture. We could, but, but I mean, a democracy and a capitalist democracy until we change, apparently, you know, the private sector has to end up with, and I'm sure those restauranteurs and what the bot industry, is that what it's called now? The bot industry? Bot delivery. The bot delivery industry. Some who are here will find a happy medium, but, you know, the 30 minutes doesn't make, the advertising for me, I don't really, you know, I understand Commissioner Steinberg's point of view on it. I could see if, you know, you know, you don't want these things rolling all over the place with different ads. But I'm fine either way, I understand the maker of the motions, but I just told you that, Congressman, because I know you're a lucid, intelligent man up there that does have, has no problem understanding that we are a federal republic that want to stay that way and understand that the private sector is very important to keeping our country the way it is. All right, so, JC, Commissioner, maybe it's like the mirror in us, but I am, first of all, I struggle with why I would care whether they advertise. Yeah. I struggle with that. I just, if it works for their business model, I mean, I don't see why I would want to prohibit them from making that money. So I am inclined to say we should allow the advertising. Yeah, yeah, that's fine. Yeah, you use, okay, you use idling, right? That's the word you use. And you use loitering, which is like a criminal word. So I just want to, so when you said loitering, it took me back to my prosecutor days, and so that's why I was like, loitering? So I don't, I think I want to use idling. I think I want to use idle. I do, where, how long they idle, I think I'm inclined to think that how long they idle is not necessarily my issue, it's where they idle. So I want them out of the way if they're idling. And so I don't know, like somebody from the maker or DVDW or whoever can tell me, like, I don't want you idling in a way if you're just hanging out waiting for stuff. But other than that, I think that the regulations probably are good, but the free market probably needs to be taken care of. Like, if you don't want to use it, restaurants don't want to use it, don't use it. If you want to choose a robot, choose a robot. I don't know that we should be that involved in it. But I do think we should allow for the advertising on it. Thank you. And I agree with you, Mr. Chair. So the item says where they can't be, but it doesn't say where they can be. So I think that's a little confusing, too. So, for example, in my neighborhood, you know, they go into, like, the swale so that they're not on the sidewalk. But obviously we have to allow them to be, like, on the swale, right? So if you're saying they can't be on the sidewalk and they can't be at the crosswalk, like, where are they going to idle, right? So in my neighborhood, sometimes they go into, like, the swale. There's, like, a little pack of them, like, sitting on the swale. They don't bother anybody on the swale, you know? They're just, like, waiting to be picked up. I'm telling you, they're like children. Why don't you give them, like, these human items? I know. They're adorable. I'm a fan. So the other thing I want to know is – and, by the way, my kids love them. My kids take pictures of them. The other thing that I think is interesting is where is the permitting money going to go? Because if we're going to be charging, you know, to JC's point, if we're going to be interfering and we're going to be charging a fee, is that going to, like, fix sidewalks? Like, where's that going? Is there a determination as to where that permitting and where the fines are going to go? So I would think that it should go to what they're using. So if it's, you know – so it should go to, like, sidewalk repair, you know, or – right? I mean, that makes sense. Well, since the DPDW is such an extraordinary drain on the general fund, I mean, I don't – I just – I don't – I have a problem having a conversation where anything that they generate money goes to. No offense to any of you, but you understand where you are, right? I mean, so, yeah, I don't – as long as they're doing something with it that, like, decreases what we have to do in the department from the general fund, I guess I'm okay with it, right? I mean – Well, the permitting fee is supposed to go to what the permit is, but, like, the fines, like, where do the fines go? I mean, and it's fine. I mean, I just – generally, just to have an idea, because, you know, the bots also, just like pedestrians, have issues when the sidewalks are damaged. They have issues when the crosswalks are damaged, right? I've seen them get stuck just like humans get stuck, right? So – because they're little and they're low. So if you have, like, a broken sidewalk, you know, they get stuck there too. So I'm just thinking for the fines, it might make sense to probably allocate that to fixing the sidewalks. Yeah. I'm not inclined to limit how the money is used inside of DPDW. Commissioner Bastian? I agree with you, Chairman Gilbert. I don't think we should – we need to. I don't think there is a need for us to regulate how they use the money. I was thinking that it's quite interesting that we're having this kind of conversation, right, about robotics delivery. I mean, who knew, you know? And I'm thinking that maybe we need to think about stops because I can foresee they're multiplying moving forward in the next – you know, we have to be proactive in the next few years. Just like you have bus stops, we may need to start thinking about having places where they can, you know, congregate in order to be proactive. So these are things that we will need to continue to talk about, and I don't mind – I'd like to thank you, Commissioner Steinberg, for bringing this item. Like I said, you know, it's interesting that we are discussing it. I don't mind the advertising. I think that especially now that, you know, businesses are going through tough times, I think anything we can do to – they can do to generate income, I think we should – it should be encouraged. I don't have any issue with that. But one thing I think we should be, you know, looking into is probably, just like we have bus stops maybe, to have designated the spaces where they can, you know, commiserate. Hmm, I had a question, and I really don't know the answer. Both of you are lawyers, right, with the county attorney's office? Yes. Okay. Who's the senior over there? Who's the senior lawyer? Like, who's in charge right now? I sit with this board, and Dale, to my right, drafted this item. I love it when responses don't actually answer my questions. It wakes me up in the morning for that moment. So who is in charge right now, like, right now for this committee? Who's in charge? Lauren, you in charge? Okay, thank you. I knew it was the person who was sitting in the back. So, okay, come here. All right. Is there a way for us to take part of the revenue and direct for permitting – not permitting, for advertising – and direct some of that to, like, DPDW or CBOs or something? Commissioner, we are constrained in the way that we can impose permitting fees. There needs to be a direct relationship between the fees that we are imposing and the work that DTPW is doing. So directing it for something other than, you know, the review, inspection, the actual cost of the fees, there may be an issue there. That's why when I said permitting, I said, no, advertising. The advertising. Yes, but the advertising fee would not be related to anything that DTPW is doing. Is that correct? It's not related to the permit, for sure. And so those are the fees that we can impose are for the things that we're actually – I'm just thinking because I know that when we did billboards, part of billboard agreements, when you gave – like, you gave – you let the – you had the billboard company do community benefit agreements, and the community benefit agreements went to not-for-profits. So I'm thinking that if you could do it for billboards, and that's a big sign on the side of the road, and basically your bots are little moving signs on the sidewalk, that it's the same basic concept, but I'm doing it in my head right now. So I'm saying – I'm thinking it's the same basic concept, but I could be wrong. Yeah. Okay. Let me make a suggestion. So, look, the point of bringing this delivery robot item forward is, you know, really not to obviously stop the use of them, just to look to really strike that balance of, you know, pedestrian safety, quality of life issues, a healthy respect for the environment. And we can go into the rabbit hole about whether or not it's taking jobs away from people or not. That's a whole other conversation. But for purposes of today, I want to make a few things clear. Number one, this is automatically coming back in one year. This has to be reviewed. We're going to get a report, and it's going to come back because this is a fast-moving industry with a lot of changes and a lot of things happening, and technologies change and environments change, and we want to make sure that we're not doing anything that would be an unintended consequences to ourselves and make sure that we're looking at this properly because we're not trying to over-regulate. We're just trying to create a parameter. Some of these municipalities are already entering into their own regulatory framework with these individual entities. The reason we said no to the advertising at this time, cities are already negotiating their own contracts and their own permitting with these delivery systems. Some don't, and some don't have the capability of it, and so that's why they're going to opt into ours if they want to have that regulation. Others are creating their own regulations, and they can, within their own confines, create advertising. What we could do are two things. One, I mean, it would really be for unincorporated, the advertising revenues that you're speaking of, which right now is not a thing. What we could do is ask the, when it comes back in 12 months, say, give us also the options for advertising. Let's see how it's going. What are the options? Where can those revenues go? And have it be prepared in a format. If we say yes today without actually understanding what that cost-revenue share is, because it's more in-depth, because you want a cost-revenue share if you're going to have any of that, which is what I think Commissioner Gilbert was alluding to. Like, where would those dollars for, because the county is not going to just say, yes, advertise, and then the county gets nothing from that, right? And I do worry about opening up that door, because as we've seen recently, there's advertising that's going to be happening that many of us on this board weren't necessarily comfortable with seeing open up that door. But listen, in terms of the idling from 20 minutes, 30 minutes, you're right. The idling is not the biggest issue. It's the location of where they're idling. So if we want to amend this to, say, back to the 30 minutes, it's fine. And there are parameters in here. It does tell you that it also limits the number you can have in one area congregating, as you put it. Right? Did you say congregating? It does limit the amount, so you don't have, you know, 50 of them in one area taking over. So I appreciate that. I mean, I think they make a good point about the standard on the 30, so I think that's good. I don't think we should prohibit the advertising. And I understand what you're saying, that municipalities are entering into their own agreement. And by the way, I think that we should be able, as a part of this item, to also enter into an agreement when it comes. Like, why can't we also enter into an agreement when it comes, right? But these bots don't necessarily know, like, jurisdictions. So let's say, like, I live in the city of Miami, right? So let's say that someone that lives in between the city of Miami, you know, let's say you live in Cora Gables and the restaurant, you know, is in the city of Miami. It's across the street, right? So the city of Miami says it's okay, but then Cora Gables doesn't. Or in the case of my district, you'll have city of Miami and then unincorporated on the other side. So does the bot become illegal as it crosses the street with its advertising? That's kind of silly. So I think what we should consider is effectuating language to allow staff to enter into an agreement. I think Oliver's right in terms of, you know, they have advertising on this thing, and then a portion of that could go to XYZ. You know, we did it with the billboards. Billboards, obviously we can get into, like, Lady Bird and all this other things, like, but we're not the ones doing the advertising, right? I think there needs to be, like, some sort of nexus between the agreement, you know, and whatever piece of the advertising we're taking. So that's why I was saying if some of this money goes to fixing the sidewalks and fixing the streets that these bots are on, that makes perfect sense because there's, like, a nexus between what the county is doing, you know, and how we're using the money. But I don't think we should prohibit advertising, and I think that what we should do is have enabling language so that if these companies want to come into unincorporated Miami-Dade, the administration has the ability to enter into an agreement with them about these bots and in that allow the administration to have this conversation about advertising, right? And just, I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with it, like, have it come back to us. That's fine. It can just come back to us. All right. So this is what I want to do. I want to amend the item to allow for 30 minutes of idling. I want the idling, we can distinguish, I guess you can say where they are. You say where they can't be. I guess if necessary, we can say where there can be. Also, I want to amend the item to allow for advertising subject to agreements that they have to enter into. So if they want to do it, the option for advertising is available. It has to be a separate agreement that can be done administratively through the administration in that there's going to be some type of community benefits for just like we do and it'll go to the CBOs or whoever, or y'all figure that out. That'll be your figuring out. Do you all want the agreement to come, the agreements to come back to us? I don't necessarily need for them to come back to the board. So, yeah. I do have a question. A second. You want to come back to us? No, I have a question. Okay. So, you know, right now I know in the city of Miami, some of these bots are advertising gambling and other things. Are you going to look at the criteria of what can and cannot be potentially allowed for advertising? We already have that policy. I think having content-based restrictions is a conversation that the attorneys do not want us to have right now. The First Amendment issue. So we're not going to have that conversation. We're going to allow for advertising to come back as an optional agreement. So you all can, if you want to advertise, you can come back and you can do an agreement with the administration. We'll work it out. I want to show the item amended to do those things, Lauren. Can you do that? Second. All right. Does the maker okay with it? Good. I would prefer no advertising, at the very least for it to come back, but I don't have a vote in this. But I do appreciate it getting passed out of committee and bringing it to BCC. We can have the agreements come back to commission if you want. We can have the agreements come back to commission. We can have the advertising agreements come back to commission. Are we doing the 20 days or the 30 days? 30 days. Or 30, what do you mean 20 or 30? I mean 30 minutes, sorry, 30 minutes. Yeah, no, no, no, yeah. 30 minutes, yeah, 30 minutes. 30 minutes, sorry. 30 minutes, not 30 days. That's commiserating, not commiserating. When the agreements come back. I'm going to send you guys pictures of when they all huddle. Agreements aren't subject to committee, they come back to the commission. And show the item amended. It's been moved by Bastien, seconded by Regalado. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Chair, I mean. Oh, roll call, call the roll. Roll, yeah, it's a, yeah. Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Regalado? Yes. Chairman Gilbert? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, Commissioner Bastien? It's mighty cold. It is cold in here, that's why I'm sitting on my hand. Too cold, I mean, who's in charge, who can, it's always cold as I'm always dressed like this. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's colder than it normally is. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Something needs to be done. Whoever is responsible, please, thank you. Somebody get, we got it, Danny. They were expecting all the community-based organizations to come to ask for money from this item. Yeah, and then we showed up. That's why they put it cold, but they didn't show up. They were expecting matching T-shirts. It's, I mean, it's a thing. So, all right, the rest of the agenda, you're welcome. The rest of the agenda, do we have, what else do we have that we have to take a roll call on? Or can we take up the rest of the agenda together, Madam Attorney? All of the rest of the agenda items can be taken as a single vote. Does anyone want to be, okay, the rest of the agenda has been moved by Bermuda, seconded by Bastien. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, show the agenda adopted. Is there any business remaining before this committee? No, you're, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. Does anything need to be forwarded? 3D. 3, which one? 3D. 3D. Okay, you're going to prepare this little thingy? Yes. All right, I'll send it to the office. We'll sign off on it. All right, show us adjourned. Thank you.