March 10, 2026 · Local Government Committee · 7,647 words · 11 speakers · 81 segments
This meeting of the Senate Local Government Committee will now come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair O'Brien. Here. Vice Chair Gaparone. Here. Ranking Member Smith. Here. Senator Taylor has checked in. Senator Landis. Here. Senator Wilkin has checked in. Senator Expecet. Landis. We have a quorum. Members, a copy of the minutes from the March 4th meeting of the committee is on your iPads. The question is, shall the minutes be agreed to? Without objection, the minutes are agreed to. The first order of business is the governor's appointment of Abby D. Hart as the director of the Public Works Commission. Her biography has been sent, has, okay, it's not on your iPad, so you should have it in front of you, okay. Her biography has sent to, in front of you, the paper copy as well. Is there any discussion from the committee?
Okay, seeing none, I recognize Vice Chair Gavron for a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to favorably report the governor's appointment to the Committee on Rules and Reference.
This motion is in order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Cheryl Ryan. Yes. Vice Chair Gaviron?
Yes.
Ranking Member Smith?
Yes.
Senator Taylor? Senator Landis?
Yes.
Senator Wilkin?
Yes.
Senator Hicks-Hunson?
Yes.
With sufficient votes, the governor's appointment is recommended to the committee on rules in reference. The role will remain open until the end of the day. Next, we have the fifth hearing on substitute Senate Bill 118. This bill was marked for a vote, but we will not be taking that vote this afternoon. So with that, I welcome Tisha Lee to please come to the podium. And welcome. You may begin when you are ready.
Good afternoon. Get my speech together. Okay. Good afternoon, Chairperson O'Brien, Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Smith and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Tisha Lee and I'm a small housing provider and community developer in Columbus, Ohio. I own and manage properties in Brittany Hills, Winding Hills and neighborhoods north and east of Columbus, neighborhoods I've lived most of my life. My mission is to create safe, dignified, and affordable housing for working families, single parents, and individuals transitioning from homelessness. This work is deeply personal to me. I once received public assistance and held a Section 8 voucher for over eight years. That support helped me raise my children and achieve stability. Today, I take great pride in giving back by providing the same kind of housing that once gave me hope. The current water utility assessment laws unfairly penalize housing providers for charges we did not create and cannot control. In two cases, tenants have vacated my properties, leaving behind large unpaid water and sewer bills, which were later added as special assessments on my property taxes, even though the accounts were in their names. One instance, a tenant unplugged her washer and left the water running when she moved out. It resulted in a bill exceeding $1,000. I wasn't notified until it was too late and later found out that the charges had already been certified to my tax bill. These costs don't come out of corporate reserves. They come directly off my kitchen table. Each unexpected expense forces me to choose between paying my household bills or covering someone else's debts. I cannot continue to provide housing for others if I can't afford to feed my own children. Recovering these funds is often more expensive than the loss itself. To seek repayment, I'd have to hire an attorney, file a civil suit, while the tenant can simply move out, open a new account, and repeat the cycle with no consequence. This is not just a financial hardship, it's a systemic lack of accountability that punishes those trying to provide affordable housing and rewards irresponsible behavior. Small housing providers are already stretched thin by raising insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs. Each new assessment erodes our ability to keep rent stable, make repairs, or invest in improvements. When property owners are forced to absorb tenant-caused utility debt, this discourages participation in affordable housing programs and drives out the very providers most committed to community well-being. These policies don't just harm small businesses, they shrink the affordable housing supply in neighborhoods like mine. My purpose in this work is impact and not profit. I've completed both the Emerging Developers Accelerated Program through EDAP, the Urban Land Institute's Ready Program, and I'm also a certified housing provider through COREY. And I've done that to better serve my community and to help build equitable, sustainable housing. I take pride in maintaining homes that are safe, affordable, and stigma-free. I want residents to feel valued, not defined by their circumstances. But when legislation creates barriers like these, it undermines those of us who are working to do well by doing good. We need common sense reform that protects both landlords and tenants. So by billing water and sewer directly to the user and not the property owner, prohibiting automatic tax assessments for unpaid tenant utilities, establishing accountability measures for tenants who default on utility payments, and creating an appeal process before any unpaid charges are certified to property taxes. This is not about shifting blame. It's about fair and shared responsibility. I am not a large developer or a corporate investor. I'm a mother, a community advocate, a small business owner working to strengthen the neighborhoods I grew up in. I want to keep providing homes for families who need the most, but I can't do that if I'm forced to pay for debts I did not create. Passing Senate Bill 118 will allow local owners like me to keep housing affordable, reinvest in our communities, and build stronger neighborhoods for everyone. Thank you for your time, for hearing my story, and for supporting reforms that help small housing providers continue to build up, not give up on our communities. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee?
Yes, ma'am. Hicks-Hudson. Thank you for being here and for your testimony. In your testimony you said that you had the tax, that there was a tax lien placed on your property without your knowledge. Can you just talk about how that happened? If you know. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. So when the tenant moved out, the bill went to the tenant. And then we'll get a notice that says this is not a bill,
so you don't know to pay that until you go to try to put in a new tenant billing agreement for a new tenant. And so when I, they'll even allow you to do that, but you'll still have that tax bill on your taxes. So when I was trying to understand why my escrow payment didn't cover everything, I still had an outstanding bill. It was a special assessment, so it was more, and it ended up increasing my overall payment. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are there any questions, other questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next up, we have Tyler Converse. Welcome to committee, and you may begin when you're ready, Tyler.
Thank you. It's good to see everyone once again. We made it through the winner, thankfully. Chairwoman O'Brien, Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the committee, Thank you for the opportunity to present opponent testimony on behalf of the Ohio's Association of Ohio Drinking Water Agencies and the Association of Ohio Metropolitan Wastewater Agencies. Together, we represent more than 5 million Ohioans. My name is Tyler Converse, and I serve as president of AODA, and I also am superintendent of the City of Canton Water Department. And we have heard and understand that you are trying to mitigate the risk of a landlord being surprised or stuck with a high utility bill at the end of the rental term. We understand that some of you are philosophically opposed to the manner in which water and wastewater utilities currently bill customers. We have heard that in some cases, some utilities are not doing enough to ensure prompt collections. and as a result, we proposed a fair and balanced way to mitigate your concerns without totally upending the way in which municipal utilities do business. If we don't find a fair balance, all you're doing is shifting the financial responsibility for unpaid utility charges from for-profit property owners to over 5 million of Ohio's rate-paying customers. This is why I'm here. I'm trying to protect the affordability of the state's wastewater and water customers. So we've heard about fairness, and I understand. So what is fair? We have also heard from several stakeholders about the philosophical notion of personal responsibility and fairness to the landlord property owner. We understand this notion and want to point out a similar argument. Should Senate Bill 118 go into effect in its current form, it would increase costs to every other rate-paying customer in the state. So every other customer would have to bear a 3-4% rate increase to hire additional staff, to overhaul billing systems, and fundamentally upend our way of doing business for the landlord's benefit. We believe the current sub-bill is unworkable and costly. We have offered the following recommendations in committee and stakeholder meetings, but to date we have not received a response specifically on why our proposals would not work. And this has really been troublesome for us and to us. We've offered mutually beneficial solutions, and again, they have largely been ignored to date. So let's get into our proposal. Mutual notification requirements. So we heard that as an example. Tonight I've heard it over and over again, and I couldn't agree more. Yes, the property owner, the landlord, should absolutely be notified when a tenant is delinquent on their bill. It shouldn't be a surprise. you shouldn't open your taxes or get a hit to your escrow. So we propose, yes, make that a requirement that mutual notification is put forth to avoid billing surprises. And we've also offered to put forth a cap on landlord liability for drinking water. So we are open to the implementation of a cap on a landlord's liability for unpaid drinking water charges for single-family rental properties. Amounts exceeding this threshold would not be recoverable through liens. This approach would incentivize early collection efforts and prevent excessive liability accumulation that would be assigned to a landlord. And this is key. This mitigates a landlord's risk because we all know that's the primary driver behind this bill's modification, which is, again, what this bill is all about. Closing thoughts. We believe the current bill is unworkable and needs to be revised. Here are just a few specific examples of problem areas. First, a property owner is responsible for maintaining the service line and plumbing within the property's boundaries. Under this bill, if the service line or plumbing or toilet starts to leak and a large bill becomes due then the tenant would be responsible for that bill However the tenant has no control over maintenance of the property or the service line or the plumbing That the property owner. Second, this bill includes restrictions in the proposed sections 743.52 that would prevent a municipal utility from discontinuing service to a property owner based on unpaid bill of a former tenant. Third, this section would also restrict municipalities from bringing forth a lawsuit to collect, which is the right that any creditor has, including providers of internet service, cable service, and other services. So it's actually more restrictive than what you would apply to these other services that are being provided to folks. Fourth, and this is one I haven't figured out yet, and perhaps you'll think about it. Fourth, how are public water systems going to build multifamily dwellings? I don't know. How would we do that? These specific provisions seem to create a statewide standard that is contrary to the basic fundamentals of contract law and would create issues under the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. I'm almost done. So we appreciate your attention to our concerns and your willingness to engage with stakeholders on this important, very important issue. Our proposed compromise is a win-win in achieving a balanced approach. As the previous speaker discussed, we need to have something in place that protects the tenants and the landlords. And we agree. It addresses the problem of protecting unknowing landlords, getting stuck with big, unpleasant surprise bills, At the end of a tenant's term, it incentivizes the utility to more promptly collect or terminate service. And most importantly, it prevents an unnecessarily unnecessary statewide increase in water and wastewater rates that would be needed to comply with this bill. Finally, and this is an important point, to be crystal clear, a vote to pass this sub-bill in its current form is a vote to needlessly raise water and sewer rates for over 5 million Ohioans. That's what would happen. This bill would effectively tax good rate-paying Ohioans for the benefit of landlords. In its current form, this bill is unworkable and directly impacts basic service affordability for, again, five million plus Ohioans. So thank you and let's take the time, please. And I know we've had the five hearings already, but let's take time and make sure to get this right before it goes forward. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee?
Vice Chair Gaborone, thank you for your testimony. When a landlord and tenant enter into a lease agreement, the landlord can charge a month of rent as a deposit to cover any damages or unpaid rent. The landlord isn't a part of the agreement for water. That's the tenant and the water company. So what would prevent the water company from charging a month's unpaid water? And that way you're collecting the money from the person who actually used the water instead of the landlord who did not.
Madam Chair, Senator, no, that's a great point. It's come up many times. And here's the deal with collecting security deposits for the current way in which we do businesses to public utilities. For one, my opinion is it would be easier for the landlord to do the same. They're already collecting one month's rental up front, a security deposit up front. They're the ones doing credit checks or soft credit checks on the tenant. We are not doing that. We do not know who comes and goes. We are not tracking tenants. Our billing is directly with the landlord. And so could we do that? Yes. But here's the issue. This is the big issue, and it goes back to the affordability part. In order for us to change the way in which we do business and operate like for-profit gas companies, phone companies, electric companies, who do charge those type of security deposits, we would have to add staff, we would have to change and upgrade software to be able to do soft credit checks, to be able to track these individuals, to be able to put into accounts and hold these monies at the deal. So could you do it? You could. But that, in doing so, that is what's going to drive rates up, because we are not currently set up to do business in that manner.
Follow up? Follow up? Well, I'm not talking about you hiring a whole bunch of staff and administrative personnel to do credit checks and all this other stuff. I'm talking about simply just everyone who comes in, when you sign up for water, you pay a deposit. And so it really doesn't need a whole bunch of administrative staff and additional costs. It just, you know, have additional sum and put in escrow and hold it in an account that gets returned if all the water bills are paid. And that way you're not charging a landlord or future tenant for water that they never used.
Right. Madam Chair, Senator, yes. And I and I I respectfully disagree. I know it sounds simple. I know it sounds simple. It's not that simple. Again, we would have to add staff. We would have to change billing. We would have to know and track when tenants come and go. So it I'm I'm going to ask you to trust me. It most certainly would add staff. It most certainly will add cost. It's not that way. And there could be an unintended consequence, too, that we in the water community have talked about. If we have to now go, let's say a tenant comes in to rent a property. As you said, they pay the security deposit the first month's rent, and they're ready to go. And the landlord's ready to rent the property. and it just happens to be somebody that we have to put a $250 or a $500 security deposit in place, and suddenly they can't afford it. Now it becomes unaffordable. Now the landlords are going to come back to us and say, or you're holding up our process. I'm going to miss out on a month's rent because you're not allowing this person to come right in. So there are unintended consequences to that, along with, you know, or more so than just increasing cost to be able to track these individuals. Follow up?
Follow up. Okay, so if this is something that the landlord then, you know, says don't do this, you're holding up this, then you have a different discussion with the landlord. But to sit there and build landlords or future tenants for water that they never used is simply unfair, in my opinion. and I guess that's not a question.
Yeah, and Madam Chair, Senator, and I understand, and I think that gets back to the philosophical ideology that has been expressed by yourself and others, and I understand that. And I'm going to lose my train of thought on that. So you were talking about who ends up coming back to pay. Well, here, yeah, it's not fair. It stinks. so the landlord gets a tenant in, they skip out on the water. They probably at that point have also skipped out on the rent, which is either a bigger issue. Is it fair to have to have the landlord eat that, pay that? I think that's unfair. Really, the criminal here, so to speak, is the person that skipped out. But I would ask, and I say this respectively, it's just an example, Is it fair then to take that loss of that tenant who skipped out and spread it out to the other good-paying customers in the city? Because that's exactly what would happen. That's exactly what happens. And that's not fair either. And it's not okay.
Are there any other? Okay. Senator Wilkin.
Thank you, Chairman. Just to follow up on my colleagues' questions, let's say there is no problem with the tenant, and you said you can't track them, but one tenant stays, and then they leave, and another tenant comes in. I mean, you track that. I mean, you open that in another tenant's name, right, and there's just not an issue. Correct?
Madam Chair, Senator, no, that is not correct. in how we currently do business. That is how the gas company does business, the for-profit gas company. That is how the for-profit electric company does business. And these companies already have that way of doing business and that cost to do business that way, incorporate it into their rate structure. It's there, and they can recover it through PUCO. What I'm saying to you is Ohio's municipalities and municipal water and drinking water systems are typically not set up that way. We do not track tenants and can't. We do not know when tenants come and go. We don't. We have a contract with the landlord themselves. Follow up?
Follow up. So if I'm a bad egg tenant and I can somehow talk myself into homes that are in your service area, in multiple homes, I could run up thousands of dollars of water bills and you're never going to know it? Because you don't track me, that's what you just said.
Yeah, no. Madam Chair, Senator, we will not know that there is a problem individual doing that within the community. However, you know who will know? The landlord community will know. They will talk to each other. They will follow up with references and say, hey, when Johnny was a, you know, I'm calling on the reference to see if Johnny was a good bill-paying customer. No, they skipped out. They skipped out. And then you might want to consider not bringing such a risky person on board. And I really want to get back to our proposal because, you know, if I may, Madam Chair, you know, we talk about modifying this bill. You could take the existing language in the bill that's already in place now, already in place, and you could add a requirement for mutual notifications. We all think that's a good idea. It makes sense. Let's do it. We could put a cap on landlord liability for drinking water. And what I mean by that is, we want to make something up. For example, a total utility bill for the month, let's say it averages $100. And we put a cap on it of six months. And we put this in, this is what we put in, a sub bill. And we put this cap in when we say a landlord will never be responsible for more than six months of average monthly bills for that customer at most. If it goes beyond that, it's completely on the water department or the water system. So it goes back to the crux to this whole thing where, and I understand, we understand, where landlords are trying to protect themselves and mitigate risk. And we have a solution to mitigate risk, put a cap on this thing that landlords are not going to get stuck in the future like Toledo with these high bills. And at the same time, public water systems are not going to have to upend the way we do business to make ourselves do business like the for gas and electric companies And five million plus rate payers who pay their bills on time are not going to have to be party to this and have an increased cost on the water and wastewater bill in an environment where affordability is already an issue for these utilities. We're just going to stack on that, and we don't need to do that. And that's where we again and again and again, we've met with the bill sponsors and so on and so forth and brought this forth. Let's sit down, have an IP group, and let's work this out and get it right and go forward with something that works for the landlords, works for you folks, and doesn't put the screws to 5 million innocent Ohioans that have nothing to do with this.
Follow up. Follow up. So let me give you this example. You have a landlord or a homeowner to where things have gone bad and the property goes to sheriff sale. Do you guys file a lien on the property?
Madam Chair, Senator, as I stand here in the moment, I would have to go back and check with my utility bill manager. That's not – I don't know. I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that specific question.
So final follow-up? Follow-up. If you do not and somebody comes to you and says, hey, I bought this house. I want to get the water turned on. What would be your position then? Do they owe that water bill? A new owner?
No, sir. A new owner is, I'm most certain, a new owner is not going to be liable for that lien. I'm not sure. Again, that would be something I'd have to check. I would have to check that. But usually it sticks with, because liens stick with the property. I'm not sure. But if there's a cap and we put a cap in place, there is no large bill at the end because we've capped it. And we've notified everybody in advance so we avoid that situation altogether.
So, Tyler, on the two questions that Senator Wilkin asked about, if you would get me, the committee, send it to me so I can move it to the committee. I'd appreciate that.
Yes, ma'am, absolutely, we'll do that.
Okay, are there... Okay, Senator Hicks-Hudson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. I have two questions. You mentioned earlier about the inability to separate bills for a multi-unit property. Why?
No, Madam Chair, Senator, it's a great question. So as I'm sitting there and thinking about this, So under the design of this bill, the idea is being that water systems have to enter into contractual or responsible agreements, not with the landlord because they're not wanting to be responsible per se, sorry, but instead directly with the tenant, right? What do we do in a six-unit apartment complex with six different families living in this apartment complex that has one shutoff and one meter entering the apartment complex? Unlike gas and electric, that when the apartment complex was built or these things were installed, if you go into the basement or whatever, you would see six individual gas meters, you would see six individual electric meters, and they're all built based on consumption individually. And what I'm saying to you is the vast majority of multifamily rental properties in the state that have municipal water, they do not have separate submetering. Who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for the meter? Who's going to pay for the meter transmitting unit? Who's going to pay to replumb these buildings so that we may do this and comply with the law? And in my opinion, currently, that's a big part of why this is unworkable. If this were to go forward today, we would do our best to comply. How are we going to do that? We would have to go to the landlord and the property owner, and they would have to be forced to expend those monies to set it up in that manner. And I guarantee and know for a fact what will happen. We'll get blown up. Our phones will blow up. oh my gosh, it's already hard to, it's not affordable, it's this, I'm having a hard time, and now you want me to come in and replumb my building so we can have sub-metering so you can build my tenants? We'll call somebody that's a proponent of this and ask them, see how they thought it through because we don't know how we would do it.
Follow up. Follow up. Thank you. I appreciate that comment and that perspective. I'm just wondering about in those municipalities that are moving to, instead of having, you know, using the radio where you don't even have to go and check the meter. Now, in Toledo, since you mentioned that, Toledo is one of the places.
The problem with Toledo and the Water Department wasn't the fact that they just did not go after folks because of moratorium. That's the Department of Public Utilities. Not on the landlord, not on the property owner. It was on the city, which I'm not really happy about, but that's the fact. But also the fact is that there has been a move to move to these new technology that they don't have to enter a property to get those. So we're doing those swap-ins and swap-outs. I understand your position, and I understand that it's a cost, but there's also a cost to the property owner who's trying to, like the proponent just testified to, the way you're positioning it is that there is no real solution. And if that is too harsh an assessment of your testimony, I apologize for it, but that's what I'm getting. I'm getting that we can't do it rather than these are things that we can do. Because I do believe that if you go to a, and no disrespect, but I have a difference of opinion, that if I'm in the business of being a landowner and I've got a multi-unit property and I cannot determine who pays what bill, because I know that there are pretty urban, I mean not urban, more modern apartment complexes that do have that and they are charging their renters a bill that the person who's renting doesn't see the bill and doesn't know that they may or may not be in compliance with their lease because they're paying underneath what that bill actually is. So I'm thinking maybe different utilities have different ways of doing things, but I believe, my point is this, that if I'm in the business, that I would make it in such a way that I would be able to be sure of my cost and be sure of my revenue so that I would not be under the kind of circumstances that the previous witness gave testimony to.
That's not really a question. I think it's more of a response back to whatever. We can talk more about it. But I'm looking for solutions rather than we can't do it. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Senator, some excellent points. And let me address the first. Well, before I go to that, because I want to come back to the key point that I want to address, and that is the suggestion that I'm saying there's no solution, because that's not the case. And I don't know if I've said to this group before, I'm also a landlord. I also, you know, I'm not a big landlord. I'm a little landlord. And I cover the cost of the utilities in the rent. So it comes to me, I pay it, I keep track of the bill every month. And I know it's not practical for all landlords, and if you have 100 properties. And we haven't even touched on out-of-state investor-owned properties and how to get those people to fix plumbing if it's going to be on our locally tenants, which is another issue. But let me please, the big point is the no solution. And you've got some great points and insights. I appreciate that. Respectfully, I say, no, I'm absolutely saying there's a solution, and I'm repeating there's a solution. Again, let's take the current bill as is that exists now. Let's put in a provision that says mutual notifications are a requirement, should do that, and let's put a cap on liabilities for landlords so that they, again, based on average month's rent for probably six months, something like that, it's still just going to be a handful of $100. It's not going to be these other numbers that we've all heard here and there. And the end, and we're done, and it helps both of us. There's the solution. It's a workable solution. We haven't been able to get the bill sponsors work with us on that, and we've tried and we've tried and we've tried, but that's the solution. It doesn't hurt municipalities and it helps everybody. And thank you for bringing up those excellent points, Senator. Thank you for repeating those.
Okay. Are there any other questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Okay, members, there is more written testimony on your iPads, and this concludes the fifth hearing on Substitute Senate Bill 118. Next up, we have a fourth hearing on Senate Bill 278. My office did not receive any testimony on this bill. I recognize Vice Chair Gaviron for a motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to favorably report Senate Bill 278 to the Committee on Rules and Reference. Is there any discussion from the committee?
The clerk will please take the roll. Chair O'Brien. Yes.
Vice Chair Gaviron. Yes.
Ranking Member Smith. No.
Senator Landis. Yes.
Senator Wilkin. Yes.
Senator Hicks Hudson. No.
With sufficient votes, Senate Bill 278 is reported to the committee on rules and reference. The roll will remain open until the end of today. Okay, next up, we have a third hearing on amended House Bill 397. I recognize Vice Chair Gaviron for a motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend with Amendment 1785.
The amendment is in order. Would you please explain the amendment?
Yes. This amendment specifies that any record pertaining to the use of a jail commissary fund is a public record subject to disclosure under existing public records law.
Is there any objection to the amendment becoming part of the bill? Okay. Hearing no objection, the amendment does become part of the bill. My office did not receive any testimony, so this will stand as the third hearing on amended House Bill 397. Next, we have a third hearing on Senate Bill 42. My office did not receive any testimony on this bill either. So this will stand as the third hearing on Senate Bill 42. Finally, we have a third hearing on Senate Bill 340. It's getting caught up here. Okay. So we'll start with testimony from Sharon Montgomery. Welcome to committee, Sharon, and you may begin when you're ready.
Thank you. Chair O'Brien, Vice Chair Gavron, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Senate Local Government Committee, I'm Sharon Montgomery, and I'm here to talk about the benefits of traffic enforcement cameras. In a nutshell cameras can be in a troublesome location 24 Peace officers cannot Cameras do not put peace officers in harm way as they stand by the side of the road talking to a driver Cameras do not put peace officers in harm way with Ohio's lax gun laws. Cameras do not pick and choose who they stop based on appearance of age, race, or any other irrelevant criteria. Cameras reduce the dangers of driver distraction of rubbernecking by other drivers as they drive by a traffic stop. The sponsor spoke of the sworn officers perfectly capable of enforcing speed laws. I'm not sure why he spoke only about speed enforcement when cameras are also used for red light enforcement, but we all know two important factors in traffic enforcement. Those perfectly capable sworn officers can't be everywhere all the time, and drivers who lack respect for safety and the laws will play the odds and break laws when they feel confident that they won't be caught. The sponsor and other opponents of using cameras for enforcement speak of all the problems related to using them. There is evidence that cameras reduce violations and thus crashes. So why are we not simply fixing the problems? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Senator Patton himself has proposed some solutions to those problems. And please, let's not get caught up with the sob stories of the people who got caught. The story we heard in sponsor testimony sounded on the surface like a really sad one. The grandmother had to choose between buying groceries or medicine because she got fined twice. She blamed that on the time gap between her two offenses and receiving her tickets. Supposedly, if she'd gotten stopped for the first speeding offense, she wouldn't have made the second one, and her fine would have been only half as much. But wait a minute. Whose responsibility was it to watch for speed limit signs? We all know as we drive into the part of a city with more businesses or residences, the speed limit is likely to go down. Coming into that part of the city on her way to and then again on her way back home from her destination, she neglected that responsibility. She failed to watch for those signs in an area unfamiliar to her that alerted her to the lower speed limits. Another popular argument against cameras is that they are a cash cow because of the amount of fine money that the jurisdiction is using them collects. Another way to look at that amount of money is that it shows how many drivers in that jurisdiction are speeding and or running red lights, and that the jurisdiction is serious about keeping its road users safe. Also, opponents claim that a few small villages they name use the cameras solely to raise money. Small villages have police to hire, roads to repair, snow to clear, and other services to provide, just like any other jurisdiction. but fewer residents to collect taxes from to fund these services. If they can fund needed services while increasing traffic safety, what's the problem? In 2019, the Governor's Highway Safety Association recommended that, quote, states and cities should also explore the use of ASE, automated traffic enforcement systems, to reduce speeding-related crashes and fatalities, end quote. States in particular should remove unreasonable barriers to the use of ASC. I'm sorry, that's the end quote. I suggest you let this bill die, acknowledge the benefits enforcement cameras, and ask Senator Patton to reintroduce some of his previous bills that would actually solve the implementation problems. It shouldn't have to be all or nothing. I've attached an abstract of a 2013, I'm sorry, 2020, sorry. I've attached the abstract of a 2023 report by the Federal Highway Administration, providing guidance on using speed cameras with reliability and accountability. Thank you for considering some of these other viewpoints. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Sharon, very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay, next up we have Patricia Kovacs. Welcome, Patricia, and you may begin when you're ready.
Thank you. My name is Patricia Kovacs. I live in Gahanna, Ohio. Chairman O'Brien, Vice Chair at Gavron and Ranking Member Smith, and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate Local Government Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Senate Bill 340. I am representing the Ohio Bicycle Federation, and although we are an organization that promotes traffic safety, we're opposed to the legislation as written. Our concern is that we don't know of other traffic control devices that require voters to approve them. Other changes in traffic controls are suggested by traffic engineers with support from law enforcement and are voted by city council with the opportunity for residents to comment at hearings. What next? Will voters have to approve pedestrian beacons or roundabouts that engineers have determined will make our streets safer? The other concern is why is local funding cut for cities that implement camera programs? We don't cut local funding for cities that collect traffic fines that are due to police officers writing tickets. There are some cities that Senator Patton would call speed traps that have police officers present at the lower speed locations. I won't repeat what Sharon talked about, that they don't racial profile, which is a criticism that comes with other law. We actually had some opposition to the distracted driving law because of that reason. But also, ticketing via camera avoids the dangers to police officers when they have to make traffic stops, the motors that are being stopped, and the drivers having to move over to avoid the stopped traffic. Studies from Seattle, Washington, which implemented speed cameras in school zones, determined that the motors who were ticketed did not offend again. Senator Patton told a story of a constituent who was ticketed by a speed camera while driving from his home to a kiddie park via a town which utilized cameras. The constituent was upset because they got two tickets coming and going. I believe that guy with grandkids in his car should have been following the speed limit, and I bet he obeyed the speed limit the next time he drove through. These cameras work, as Columbus noted, with a 28% decrease in fatal and injury right-angle crashes when they had their cameras monitoring intersections. We spoke with a local law enforcement officer. He suggested that there should be much more oversight by the county sheriff. including managing the cameras, obtaining county commissioner support, choice of the vendor, location of the cameras where there's high crashes, and traffic fine distribution policies. We like that the bill removes the language that police officers must be present, but we don't agree with the voter approval or the cut in the local funding. We hope that this bill will be amended before it be passed by the Senate Local Government Committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Patricia, for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you. Members, there is more written testimony on your iPads. This will stand. Oh, I'm sorry, Kyle. Sorry about that. I will welcome Kyle Brooks from the Ohio Township Association.
You may begin when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for not forgetting me. Chairwoman O'Brien, Vice Chair Gaviron, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Senate Local Government Committee, my name is Kyle Brooks. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Ohio Township Association. On behalf of Ohio's 1,308 townships, thank you for the opportunity to provide interested party testimony on Senate Bill 340. As you may know, in House Bill 23, the transportation budget of the 135th General Assembly, the the OTA agreed to a compromise that allowed townships to continue to use traffic cameras under conditions. A township could continue to operate traffic cameras as long as the device was a handheld camera operated by a law enforcement officer physically present. However, House Bill 54, this GA's transportation budget, included a provision prohibiting counties and townships from utilizing traffic law enforcement photo monitoring devices to detect and enforce traffic violations. Following the passage of House Bill 54, the OTA communicated our concerns to Governor DeWine and requested a veto of the provision. And while the governor did not issue a veto, the concerns raised by townships for public safety and local control remain. Prior to this change, several townships across Ohio used traffic cameras as a tool to help improve road safety. These devices assisted local law enforcement to deter speeding and other dangerous behaviors, particularly in areas with consistent safety concerns. For example, Liberty Township in Trumbull County is located near three major highways just north of the city of Youngstown. Liberty Township's policy was only to activate the camera when a car was driving over 11 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. The township also conducted a public education campaign to make the public aware of the program. This effort included mailing social media campaigns, local news stories, signage placed in designated enforcement areas, all to alert drivers that the cameras were in use. In addition to the public safety benefits, traffic camera revenue previously provided townships with a modest but meaningful funding source to support safety services and reduce reliance on property tax levies. For townships, property tax levies remain the primary revenue source used to fund essential services such as police protection, fire protection, and emergency medical services. For these reasons, the OTA respectfully requests that the SB 340 be amended to provide townships with the same opportunity afforded to municipalities in this legislation. Specifically, townships should be permitted to place the question of traffic law photo monitoring devices on the ballot, allowing residents to decide whether their community wishes to utilize this tool. Providing voters with that choice respects the principle of local control and allows each community to determine the policies that best fits its need. The OTA is willing to support restoring provisions from previous law where jurisdictions using traffic cameras receive a reduction in the local government fund distributions, and the traffic camera must be a handheld device. This compromise addresses previous legislative concerns. In conclusion, this issue is about safety and fairness. Townships ask that they not be treated differently than municipalities when it comes to providing safety services for residents. Providing parity would ensure local governments have access to the same options when addressing traffic safety. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and the Senate Local Government Committee, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you, Kyle, for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee?
This is not a factual question.
Sure.
Out of all the townships in Ohio, gut feeling, do you think, how many do you think might actually give this to their residents to vote on it?
Just curious. Sure. So around, if I had to guess, probably in the 20 to 25 range would put it on the ballot. That's roughly what we had prior to the prohibition.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your, oh, I'm sorry.
Senator Landis. Thank you, Chair. And just to follow up on what the Senator was asking, 20 to 25, is that actual townships or is that percentage?
Oh, through the Chair to the Senator, 20 to 25 townships, not percentage.
Okay.
Yes.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Thank you for the clarification.
I just wanted to make sure. Thanks, Kyle.
Okay. Well, thank you very much, Kyle, for your testimony. So now, members, there is more written testimony on your iPads, and this will stand as the third hearing on Senate Bill 340. With no further business before the committee, we are hereby adjourned.