Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Micromobility Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances micromobility policy with ban for younger students, agrees clarifying edits
Summary
The board reviewed draft JLIE to prohibit motorized micromobility devices (ebikes, e‑scooters, hoverboards) on board property for elementary and middle school students and high‑schoolers without driver’s licenses; members debated enforcement, equity, education and liability and agreed to forward the draft with edits clarifying coverage and removing two aspirational statements.
Orange County Public Schools counsel presented updates to Policy JLIE on July 21, proposing a ban on motorized micromobility devices for elementary and middle school students and for high‑school students who do not hold a driver’s license, and setting operational rules for permitted high‑school users.
Counsel (identified in the record as Mr. Pomerini / Palmarini) described the policy’s definitions and statutory framing, including an ebike definition (motor not exceeding 750 watts and top assisted speed of 28 mph), and said the draft incorporates Florida statutory standards limiting employee liability when staff do not act with bad faith or malicious purpose. The policy would permit traditional bicycles and non‑motorized scooters on campus under school rules, but would bar class‑3 ebikes and certain motorized devices on board property.
Under the draft, high‑school students permitted to bring micromobility devices must obtain a non‑transferable decal issued by their school; decals mirror existing parking decal permit systems. The draft requires users to dismount and walk devices on board property, park devices in designated racks, prohibits riding on sidewalks/courtyards/fields, bans detached battery charging on campus, and allows principals to add requirements. Counsel noted some statements (such as encouraging students to follow traffic laws off campus) are aspirational because the district lacks jurisdiction outside board property.
Board members debated whether an immediate districtwide ban is the best approach. Member Gallo and others raised concerns that banning motorized micromobility devices without further data or local infrastructure (multi‑use pathways) could reduce student mobility and disproportionately affect students who use these devices for transportation. Several members, including Member Salamanca and Member Felder, emphasized safety — recounting injuries and local hospital concerns — and urged a stricter approach to reduce harm. Counsel warned that providing district training could create liability exposure if the district became a source of instruction in which plaintiffs later allege negligence.
Members also asked whether the policy covers after‑hours sporting events and district‑leased fields (Showalter Field was discussed); counsel proposed language that would cover board‑owned and board leased/rented properties. After debate the board reached consensus to advance the micromobility policy to the July board meeting with two aspirational statements removed and with added language clarifying the prohibition applies “at any time, including but not limited to after‑school events” on board‑owned or board leased/rented property. No formal vote was recorded during the work session.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft with the requested edits and prepare any associated code of conduct language (discipline escalation and decal enforcement) before the policy appears on the board meeting agenda.
