Mayor Pureval says revised parking security proposal strikes 'right balance'

Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval has proposed a modified version of an ordinance to increase security requirements in public parking lots and garages. Earlier this year, Pureval delayed discussion on the original proposal, which was put forward by the city administration.

“The primary goal of this is to improve lighting and to improve video and recording of the spaces as a proven deterrent for car break-ins,” Pureval told WVXU. “Through conversations with the administration [and] some of the industry leaders, we've identified specific areas to drive a compromise around barriers and signage in order to preserve and prioritize the lighting and the video monitoring."

Several parking operators contacted City Council and the mayor’s office to express concern about costs, especially related to fencing and cameras.

Pureval says this "B version" would accomplish the original goals, “while also better aligning with industry standards and an actual practicality for imposing these new regulations."

Both versions have now been referred to City Council’s Budget, Finance and Governance Committee.

“I'm sure now that the council has it, there'll be more conversations and potentially more modifications,” he said. “This represents my best effort to strike the right balance between concerns from the industry and prioritizing cameras and lighting."

Committee Chair Jeff Cramerding and the City Manager’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Council is on summer recess until the week of Sep. 8.

Comparing the two versions

The ordinances are largely the same; both would amend existing city law regarding operating licenses for public parking garages and lots.

Parts of the law that would not change under either ordinance include requirements for liability insurance and authorization for the city to make periodic inspections of garages and lots.

Both versions include a six-month grace period during which operators would not face fines, penalties or enforcement actions as long as they are "making a good faith effort to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, unless the violation presents an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare."

The original proposal would go into effect 30 days after passage; Pureval's version would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

Both ordinances add a new section that authorizes the city to grant "reductions and exemptions" if the requirements require the loss of parking spaces. Only lots and garages created before Jan. 1, 2026 would be eligible. Operators would have to demonstrate that they can't avoid the loss of spaces by simply redesigning the layout.

Fencing and cameras

The city administration’s ordinance requires parking lots to have full-perimeter fencing or other barriers to prevent both vehicles and pedestrians from entering and exiting anywhere other than designated areas.

It also requires cameras at all entrances and exits to parking lots and garages in one of three ways:

1. Install cameras with live monitoring by a local employee during all hours of operation
2. Install cameras that are connected to the Cincinnati Police Department’s FUSUS program, giving the police real-time access to the camera feed at any time
3. Install cameras that are registered with the Cincinnati Police Department’s FUSUS program

The third option does not require live monitoring and does not give police real-time access; it would be the same as a homeowner registering their doorbell camera with FUSUS.

Operators can staff the facility with an attendant during hours of operation instead of installing cameras.

Mayor Pureval’s ordinance requires either full-perimeter fencing or security cameras with full-perimeter visibility coverage. The requirements for cameras at entrances and exits remain the same.

“I felt that either providing complete coverage of the entire lot … or doing the fencing and having more of a limited field of view for the cameras was an appropriate compromise,” Pureval said.

Lighting

Both ordinances require that parking lots and garages have lighting sufficient to “deter criminal activity and protect the health and safety of persons.”

Parking lots with more than five spaces would have to meet or exceed the minimum illumination standards of the National Parking Association.

Garages must provide lighting on all “egress walking surfaces, stairways, landings, pathways, elevators, and other publicly accessible areas” as well as meeting the minimum illumination standards of the National Parking Association.

Signage

Lots and garages are already required to post a permanent sign at each entrance displaying the name of the business, hours of operation, and schedule of rates and charges.

Both ordinances expand on the existing requirements to require signage that clearly indicates payment methods available.

Mayor Pureval’s ordinance adds a carve-out for parking lots with less than 100 spaces; those lots can have a sign “in at least one prominent location conspicuous to drivers entering the facility.” And, the signage at these lots can display parking rates via a QR code or other digital means.

“For surface lots, the industry standard is for folks to come into the lot to check the rates, decide whether or not they want to park there, and then either park or move on if they disagree,” Pureval said.

Towing or immobilizing

Both ordinances would prohibit a parking garage or lot operator from towing a vehicle, or attaching immobilization equipment to a vehicle, within the first 20 minutes of arrival.

Both would also require a monthly report listing each vehicle towed or immobilized.

Reporting crime

The city administration’s ordinance adds a requirement that operators report “all incidents of crime” within 24 hours. Mayor Pureval’s ordinance requires reports of specific crimes, including: theft, vandalism, human trafficking, prostitution, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery, rape, and drug offenses.

Penalties

Both ordinances would significantly reduce the penalty for violations. Existing law defines any violation as a Class E1 civil offense, which carries a $10,000 fine. Each day of the same violation constitutes a separate offense, which both ordinances preserve.

Here’s how penalties in the original proposal compare to Mayor Pureval’s proposal:

Read more:

• Why the mayor delayed a vote on increased security at public parking lots and garages
• Council delays vote on ordinance for city oversight of 'chronic nuisance' bars and restaurants
• Cincinnati mayor says no city tax increase will be on the Nov. ballot
• What would a land value tax mean for Cincinnati residents?