A Cleveland City Council committee approved an amended ordinance that allows commercial operation of under‑speed vehicles in public rights-of-way, subject to annual safety inspections and authority for the public‑safety director to set authorized service areas and special-event restrictions.

The ordinance (808-2025), as amended in committee, limits initial authorization to business use and requires annual safety inspections administered by the police bureau’s traffic division. Sergeant Schaeffer described the inspection workload as schedulable and noted the division uses certified commercial vehicle inspection officers; staff estimated a small inspection team for the program.

Administrative staff cited the Ohio Revised Code’s classification that an under‑speed vehicle does not exceed 20 miles per hour; the legislation does not, at this stage, authorize higher-speed “low‑speed vehicles,” which would require separate local or state action. A council member asked whether vehicles that exceed 20 mph would be street legal under existing law; staff said that would require additional investigation and possible separate legislation.

The amended ordinance gives the public‑safety director explicit authority to create restricted service areas, implement special-event restrictions and set fees for pickup and drop-off zones. The amendments also establish an administrative suspension and revocation process; the transcript records committee discussion about the appeals path and notes that state procedures direct administrative appeals to the statutorily appropriate court (as discussed by staff).

Several small-business operators and tour providers — including Chris Taylor of Beller Concierge and a longtime tour operator who identified himself with Bob’s Bicycle Tours — addressed the committee. Taylor said his service aims to help riders with limited mobility and stadium-area access. The touring operators urged a commercial pilot approach, and said they would like eventual neighborhood operations if safety and notification processes are worked out.

Committee members raised several operational questions during the hearing: whether the city can limit geographic areas (staff said the public‑safety director may), whether council members should receive notice or sign-off when operations are expanded into neighborhoods (the committee requested staff develop a protocol), whether nonprofits should get inspection-fee waivers (staff noted the amendment request sought fee waivers but not inspection waivers), and how inspections will be scheduled. Staff said inspections would be annual, scheduled centrally and would be handled by the traffic bureau, which has a small inspection team.

The ordinance advanced as amended; staff and council members agreed to work between committee and finance to finalize language on council notification, appeals language placement, nonprofit fee waivers, and precisely which streets or areas will be restricted or authorized.