In September, the Ohio Senate will take up House Bill 69, which would effectively ban automated red-light and speed cameras in Ohio. The bipartisan legislation, introduced by a pair of southwest Ohio representatives, cleared the Ohio House by a 61-32 vote in June.

Ohio cities and villages primarily oppose the ban on public safety grounds, arguing the cameras help reduce crashes and free up police to focus on more serious crimes.

But there is also an economic reality to the ban, said Kent Scarrett, a lobbyist for the Ohio Municipal League, which represents Ohio villages and cities in the Statehouse. The camera ban would amount to yet another funding cut for some communities, he said.

“The revenue component cannot be denied,” Scarrett said. “Our folks always considered this more of a safety issue… But you know, our demands are not going away for the need to generate revenue. Yet, the state seems to be not quite as supportive of a partner as they’ve been in the past.”

Traffic cameras netted around $16.5 million for eight Ohio cities and villages that had them in 2012, according to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the state legislature’s research arm. That doesn’t count camera revenues in six other communities — including Elmwood Place, the Hamilton County village that inspired the ban after raking in $1.5 million in just six months before a judge shut ordered its cameras shut down — for which the LSC couldn’t obtain 2012 full-year data.

“If we pass this bill as is, this is going to be a tax increase, because communities are going to have to make up that (loss of revenue) somehow,” Rep. Rex Damschroder (R-Fremont) said last month before voting against the ban.

Recent changes in state law have negatively impacted local governments’ bottom lines, Scarrett said.

In 2011, the state legislature repealed the estate tax, which meant local governments across Ohio lost an average of about $370 million a year. And local government funding in the most recently-passed two-year state budget is about $330 million less compared to what it was in 2011.

“In this era we’re in right now … it’s just chipping away the opportunities for us to raise revenue on the local level,” Scarrett said.

But Rep. Ron Maag (R-Lebanon), one of the bill’s two sponsors, said he’s not worried about the potential loss of revenue to cities.

“When we pass laws and have punishments for things, it’s to alter behavior, not to make money,” Maag said. “Case in point, when we put people in prison for a felony, we don’t look to make money from them by making license plates. I have to reject that argument. Certainly it might have some (fiscal) impact, but it shouldn’t be part of the equation.”

Seven communities in the region — Hamilton, New Miami, Middletown, Dayton, Springfield, Trotwood and West Carrollton — have automated traffic cameras, which in total raise around $4 million a year for the cities’ operations.

Supporters of the automated traffic camera ban say the cameras violate due process and are just a way for cities to make money. They also question the cameras’ impacts on public safety.

But opponents of the ban, including police groups, say cameras should be regulated to weed out bad actors, but not shut off entirely.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES IMPACTED

If the revenues drop in Middletown, that means citations are dropping and the program is working, said police Maj. Mark Hoffman.

Middletown only uses red light cameras, which Hoffman said could generate revenues to cover the cost to pay the salary and benefits, and equip, two new police officers for the department. Losing the money from the violator-funded program, which goes to the general fund and isn’t earmarked for anything specific, will impact a police department budget that’s already tight, he said.

“It won’t automatically equate to cutting a police officer, or anything like that,” said Hoffman. “But it’s going to have to come from somewhere.”

The city does not hide the fact it has camera-enforced traffic control intersections. Signs are posted at the entrance to the city, and at the approach for each location, which there are 14 cameras at 8 intersections.

The contract with Redflex, which owns and operates the red light cameras in Middletown, gives a contractual out for both sides if the law changes as proposed by House Bill 69.

Hoffman said the red light cameras have benefited Middletown in more ways than just putting money in the city’s coffers.

“When we put a camera up in a new location, we’ll see a spike in violations. Then we’ll see fewer and fewer violations as time goes on,” he said.

Hoffman feels the city runs the program “the right way,” where they research intersections with a significant number of accidents to determine if it’s because of red light violators.

“We’ve found some intersections have a lot of accidents, but they don’t have the violations,” said Hoffman. “We always figure it’s something else. It’s given us a chance at some of these places to correct some engineering deficiencies there.”

Without the red light cameras, noticing those deficiencies “won’t be as apparent,” he said.

Life without the red light cameras for the department of 76 sworn officers, Hoffman said, will be an obvious decrease in red light traffic violations, and likely an increase in seeking grants for traffic patrols.

“We’re pretty limited,” he said. “We’re taking technology and we’re using it in a smart way to enforce traffic regulations and to make the streets safer. The people that are arguing against a well-run program like ours are really arguing for less safe streets.”

The Hamilton Police Department, which has 104 sworn officers, started employing a speed-enforcement van in April 2010. Like in Middletown, revenues from the speed camera goes into the city’s general fund.

“Public safety receives approximately 70 percent of our general fund revenue, so ostensibly it goes to public safety,” said City Manager Joshua Smith.

Hamilton has lost “a tremendous amount” of state revenues in the past few years which were general fund in nature, he said.

“As we struggle with a general fund deficit, losing another $338,000 annually would present a significant challenge in funding general funded-related departments, which are police, fire, municipal courts, parks” and other areas, Smith said.

Speed complaints in neighborhoods, around schools and parks come in daily, according to Sgt. Ed Buns, who is the department’s traffic section supervisor. “Given our volume of calls for service for all types of police calls, speed enforcement has suffered the most by less officers on the street.”

The speed van is parked in areas identified based on a fixed criteria narrowly focused on pedestrian and motorist safety, Buns said.

“The speed van, as proven by statistics, is slowing down drivers in areas of parks, schools and high accident areas,” he said.

The mobile speed van program is not intended to be used to raise money for the city, but to increase safety, Buns said.

“The relatively small amount of revenue that is derived from the speed van program has assisted in the purchase of new police cruisers, and other needed items, which allows us to use the money that would be used for purchases to be used to retain police officer positions,” he said.

New Miami police Chief Kenneth Cheek could not be reached for comment for this story. However, in October 2012 the village of New Miami debuted three unmanned portable speed cameras. Cheek said in October 2012 they were “an additional safety program” in hopes to “slow people down.

The cameras first were positioned along a one-mile stretch of U.S. 127 that has a 35 mile per hour speed limit. Any vehicle that travels 11 miles per hour or more over the speed limit will be photographed and the registered owner is fined.

Earlier this month, four village residents and businesses filed a lawsuit claiming the speed cameras are unconstitutional. The suit alleges they cameras “fail to provide adequate due process to vehicle owners as guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Lebanon attorney Charles Rittgers and Mason attorney Michael Allen.