When the new state transportation bill passed, it reduced the amount of state financial aid local jurisdictions receive by the amount they collect annually in speed camera ticket revenue. It also mandated the courts handle speed camera citations as civil proceedings that include court fees and costs.
RELATED: New Miami: Ohio laws on speed cameras could cost us our police department
New Miami Fiscal Officer Belinda Ricketts said it would cost the village an estimated $612,000 in court costs, and tickets only generate about $222,000.
Village Solicitor Dennis Adams filed a suit in August that asks Howard for a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunctions, against the state. During a recent hearing on the matter, Adams said the tiny village will basically lose its police force if the law stands.
“From a financial standpoint it would cost the village almost three times more than it generates to run that program,” Adams said. “Just from the financial aspect alone, it would make it impossible for the village of New Miami to run that automated speed enforcement program; the village would effectively lose its entire police force.”
New Miami, like all the other jurisdictions that have sued the state over the new laws, claims the speed catcher regulations violate home rule authority. The village originally planned to possibly join the city of Dayton’s fight with the state, but in order to begin running the cameras a judge here must strike down the new law.
As other jurisdictions began marshaling judicial support, Adams said the village decided to file its own case. He has relied on the wins Lucas and Summit county courts to bolster his case.
The state recently filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
“The village also relies on preliminary injunction rulings issued by the Lucas and Summit County Courts of Common Pleas. These decisions, however, are not binding or persuasive as they fail to acknowledge, let alone address, United States Supreme Court precedent acknowledging the difference between direct regulation of government entities and funding conditions that incentivize particular conduct,” the state’s attorneys office wrote. “These trial court decisions adopt an expansive view of municipal home rule power that has never been endorsed by any Ohio appellate court or the Ohio Supreme Court.”
Adams had no comment on the filing.
About the Author