Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Parking Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee unanimously approves private-parking ordinance with expanded signage, appeal and privacy rules
Summary
The committee unanimously approved a substitute ordinance establishing new requirements for private parking facilities, including standardized on-site signage, a 15‑minute grace period, appeal procedures, prohibitions on selling user personal information, and civil penalties.
The Infrastructure Innovation and Technology Committee unanimously approved a substitute ordinance revising county rules for private parking facilities to require standardized signage, a 15-minute grace period for private parking invoices, specified appeal procedures, limits on transfer or sale of personal information obtained from customers, and civil penalties for violations.
The substitute ordinance (item 1G2 substitute) amends section 21-46 of the Miami-Dade County Code. Committee discussion focused on uniform application of signage requirements across large parking facilities and ensuring that any signs located deeper inside a property carry the same content and size requirements as entrance signage. Commissioner Higgins proposed a friendly amendment clarifying that signage-size and content requirements would apply to all relevant signage on the premises; the committee accepted the amendment.
Under the substitute, private parking operators would be required to display clear signage at entrances and throughout large lots so the public receives consistent notice of rates, invoice procedures and appeals. The ordinance also requires operators to provide an appeal procedure for private parking invoices, imposes a mandatory 15-minute grace period for private parking facilities, and bars operators from selling or transferring personal information obtained from individuals using parking services. The item provides civil penalties and contains severability language.
Committee discussion noted enforcement and the practical placement of signs in large facilities where an entrance sign may not be visible from interior stalls. Commissioner Higgins said the amendment was intended to ensure “any sign that they feel is important to put in their parking lot … has the same wording on it.” The committee voted to adopt the substitute as amended; the transcript records a unanimous vote.
The committee’s action moved the ordinance forward; the transcript shows the committee asked county staff to incorporate the clarified signage language into the substitute text. The final ordinance text and enforcement approach will be reflected in the code language drafted by county counsel and presented for any further Board-level review as required.
