PANAMA CITY BEACH — Scooter rental businesses in Panama City Beach will be required to carry liability insurance and businesses that are repeat offenders of the city’s beach ordinance could be shut down under two ordinances approved Thursday night.
The council gave its second and final approval to the ordinances.
It also approved the first of two readings an ordinance banning panhandling that has raised concerns of the Florida Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
One of the ordinances council members passed requires scooter rentals on the beach to carry coverage that amounts to the minimum required by the state on automobiles: $10,000 per person for each crash, $20,000 for all people and $10,000 property damage.
By requiring the insurance, the city has adopted a requirement that few cities or counties in the state mandate. It’s also much less insurance than what Bay County is requiring. Bay County recently required scooter rental businesses to carry coverage of $1 million in general liability and $500,000 in bodily injury.
Rick Roof, the owner of California Cycles, with several locations in the city and the only scooter business in the unincorporated area, said he could not find any insurance company that would carry the amount of coverage Bay County was imposing. He has filed a lawsuit against Bay County over the insurance mandate, and the suit challenges the county and city’s requirement for scooter businesses to put safety flags on the back of scooters and require riders to wear vests.
The council agreed not to have the insurance provision kick in until Aug. 28. They agreed to that date so it could mesh with revisions they are making to another ordinance requiring scooter safety flags and vests.
Under the motion the council approved, riders would only be required to wear vests on city streets and the flag requirement would go away. City Attorney Doug Sale said making these amendments could bolster the city’s case in defending the lawsuit.
But council members, after listening to Chief Drew Whitman talk about how well the safety vests are working, were concerned that only requiring the vests on city streets would eliminate the requirement to wear them on Front Beach Road, which is a state road.
“I think the vests are working good (helping with safety),” Whitman said, adding that because of this he didn’t think the safety flags on the back of the scooters were necessary.
The council agreed with a motion by Councilman John Reichard to instruct the attorney to go after legal fees from California Cycles for the “frivolous lawsuit.”
Roof said his business is down substantially, with many riders not wanting to wear the vests.
Beach ordinance
The revised beach ordinance the council approved still has many of the same prohibitions on the beach as the old ordinance. It is still against the law to walk pets on the beach or in public parks. Lifeguards still must be certified.
The ordinance delves into new regulations and prohibitions. It will now be illegal for a person to bring on the beach a “metal shovel of the type customarily sold in hardware stores,” unless part of a permitted construction project. Toy shovels still would be allowed.
It now also will be illegal to dig a hole in sand on the beach deeper than 2 feet unless it is for a permitted construction project. A violation of this could result in a $50 fine for a first offense.
The revised ordinance also dictates where the operators of steam-operated flyboards and backpacks that lift people in the air over water can operate, with buffer zones for safety reasons. Under the revised ordinance, they can be operated only at least 300 feet from the shoreline. The rides also can be no closer than 100 yards from any other operating beach amusement device.
A new provision in the ordinance would give a board the power to decide to close a business that repeatedly violates the ordinance.
The Water Safety Board, consisting of two operators of beach businesses, two owners or operators of a beachfront motel or hotel or homeowner’s association, and a Gulf-front resident, would hear cases involving businesses that contest their tickets for violating the ordinance.
Councilman Reichard expressed concerns that the city would have to pay legal expenses for the board.
“I mean all of that sounds like it’s going to have to be touched by the attorneys,” he said.
Under the revised ordinance, the board would not be able to suspend the owner-operator’s permit for a first or second offense in a calendar year.
For a third offense occurring within a calendar year, the board would suspend the offender’s permit for two consecutive days. For a fourth offense occurring within the same calendar year, the board would suspend the offender’s permit for five days. Businesses that violate the ordinance five times in a calendar year would have their annual permit to do business on the beach terminated in the location they were operating.
The council on first reading also approved of a revised ordinance to make it easier to prosecute “aggressive” peddling and panhandling.
The new law, if it passes on second reading, would make it illegal to peddle or solicit within or close to public places such as parks and city beach accesses or businesses such as liquor and grocery stores. The ordinance also requires those who do door-to-door peddling or solicitation at private residences, apartments and motels to first secure a permit from the chief of police.
The penalty for violating the ordinance could include a fine not to exceed $500 and/or possible imprisonment up to 60 days.
Chief Whitman said in many instances panhandlers are making people feel like people are extorting money from them.
The ordinance also requires those who do door-to-door peddling or solicitation at private residences, apartments, motels to first secure a permit from the chief of police.
The penalty for violating the ordinance could include a fine not to exceed $500 and/or possible imprisonment up to 60 days.
The ordinance states the city finds that an increase in “aggressive” solicitation or peddling throughout the city “has become extremely disturbing and disruptive to residents and visitors, and has contributed to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public places and enhances a sense of fear, intimidation and disorder.”
The ordinance defines “aggressive manor,” among other things, as approaching or speaking to someone or physically following them so they fear bodily contact or harm or “perceive a threat or intimidation to give money or other thing of value.”
The ordinance makes it illegal to approach the driver or occupant of a motor vehicle for the purpose of peddling or soliciting, and the new wording in the proposed ordinance states the city recognizes solicitation, panhandling and peddling involve “conduct and secondary effects which can be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.”