COLUMBUS — As Toledo prepares to go before the Ohio Supreme Court next month to defend its automated traffic camera program from state-imposed penalties, the House has again voted to go after its revenue to negate any financial gain from the cameras.
House Bill 410, sponsored by Reps. Bill Seitz (R., Cincinnati) and Jim Butler (R., Dayton), this week passed the chamber by a bipartisan vote of 71-24. It now goes to the Senate.
It would withhold Local Government Fund revenue-sharing dollars from all cities, villages, and townships with automated, stationary red-light and speed-enforcement cameras in an amount equal to what they collect in civil fines.
“If, as some cities contend, these programs are all about safety and not about revenue enhancement, they should have no problem with the dollar-for-dollar reductions in their local government funds, to which, by the way, they have no legal entitlement, constitutional or otherwise…,” Mr. Seitz said on the House floor.
The bill would also require citations to be heard by a municipal or county court rather than through an administrative hearing process like one used by Toledo.
“The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Toledo and other home-rule cities,” said Rep. Michael Ashford (D., Toledo), referring to recent decision in a separate case. “Instead of respecting the decision of the Supreme Court, they’re circumventing the decision and making a new law that if you install red-light cameras, we’re going to deduct from your Local Government Funds.
“It’s egregious and mean-spirited,” he said.
Two Republicans joined 22 House Democrats in opposing the bill, while nine Democrats joined 62 Republicans in support.
In northwest Ohio, the delegation split along party lines. Reps. Ashford, Mike Sheehy (D., Oregon), and Teresa Fedor (D., Toledo) voted “no.”
Republican Reps. Derek Merrin (R., Monclova Township), Theresa Gavarone (R., Bowling Green), Jim Hoops (R., Napoleon), Steve Arndt (R., Port Clinton), Bill Reineke (R., Tiffin), Robert Sprague (R., Findlay), Craig Riedel (R., Defiance), Robert Cupp (R., Lima), and Riordan McClain (R., Upper Sandusky) voted “yes.”
Mailed citations issued by cities are civil in nature. They carry a fine, but, unlike criminal citations, no points are levied against a vehicle owner’s license, and auto insurers are not notified of violations.
The cameras are designed to capture images of an offending vehicle’s license plates. It assumes the registered owner was driving, unless the owner provides evidence to the contrary.
“This is a safety issue,” said Dale Emch, Toledo’s law director. “The cameras slow people down and encourage drivers to be more cautious at intersections. It’s unfortunate that certain state lawmakers are once again trying to make our streets less safe.”
Mr. Emch called the bill “the latest attempt for Columbus to interfere with Toledoans’ authority to govern themselves.”
“The Ohio Supreme Court has previously ruled on a similar law and found it to be unconstitutional, and this latest bill is no different,” he said.
While the Supreme Court last year again upheld cities’ home-rule authority to operate such programs and struck down some state restrictions as unconstitutional, Toledo on April 24 will again appear before the court to challenge financial penalties separately enacted as part of the state budget in 2013.
The 2013 penalties differ somewhat from those contained in the new bill.
The funds to be withheld from cities would be equal to the amount cities collect in fines for camera citations. Although not enforced because of a court injunction obtained by the city, current law calls for withholding LGF monies equal to the amount of fines issued.
That would have meant that cities could have lost money based on fines never collected or kept by the private companies operating the cameras.
The penalty this time would also apply to all local governments with cameras, not just those deemed not in compliance with the now partly invalidated state-imposed restrictions on their operations.
Rather that redistribute the city’s withheld dollars to other local governments in the county, House Bill 410 would put the money into a new fund dedicated to “public safety” projects by the state Department of Transportation.
According to the Legislative Service Commission, 10 cities, four villages, and two townships currently have camera programs. Toledo, the only program in northwest Ohio, collects an estimated $2.3 million a year based on data through May, 2017.
Toledo is estimated to receive nearly $7.4 million this year from the LGF, fueled by a percentage of all state tax collections. A reduction of $2.3 million would reflect a 31 percent cut.
“It is critical to point out that this legislation does not look to ban or even regulate traffic enforcement cameras but proposes instead to bring due process back to the people who receive mailed citations from private traffic enforcement camera companies and to test the cities’ claims that these cameras are all about safety and not about revenue by taking the profit out of policing for profit,” Mr. Seitz said.
Staff writer Sarah Elms contributed.
Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.
First Published March 23, 2018, 4:54 p.m.
