Cincinnati City Council is expected to pass new security regulations for public parking lots and garages Monday, months after the city administration first proposed the idea.
Council is split on the question of whether surface lots should have to install security cameras. That’s the key difference between two ordinances that would require lighting for all lots and garages. Both ordinances would also require garages to have security cameras at all entrances and exits, or else hire in-person staff for all operating hours.
“I believe cameras on surface parking lots and garages, but specifically on surface parking lots, is an important deterrent and also investigative tool after a break-in happens,” Mayor Aftab Pureval told WVXU. “On cameras, I think we just fundamentally disagree.”
Council’s Budget, Finance and Governance Committee is expected to debate and vote at a meeting Monday at 1 p.m. It’s not yet clear which version has majority support from Council.
How we got here
Cincinnati Police Department data shows an increasing percentage of stolen firearms are taken from vehicles:
- 2023: 344 stolen from a vehicle (56% of all stolen firearms)
- 2024: 298 stolen from a vehicle (61% of all stolen firearms)
- 2025: 324 stolen from a vehicle (66% of all stolen firearms )
- YTD 2026: 267 stolen from a vehicle (70% of all stolen firearms)
Earlier this year, City Manager Sheryl Long’s administration submitted an ordinance aimed at reducing car break-ins at public parking lots and garages with new requirements for fencing, lighting and security cameras.
The ordinance also updates consumer protection measures related to rate and payment transparency, and when a car can be towed or immobilized for nonpayment.
Some parking lot operators expressed opposition to the proposed rules, saying they support making their properties more secure, but the proposal would be too expensive.
In response, Mayor Aftab Pureval delayed discussion while he worked on a “B version” with compromises, which he filed in August.
Then, Council members Seth Walsh and Meeka Owens asked for even more time to work on their own “C version” with additional compromises, which was filed last week. It removes the requirement for security cameras in parking lots.
“Everyone is certainly interested in making sure our Downtown is safe — it’s the same values we all share,” Council member Meeka Owens told WVXU. “We also recognize that to do this, we have to do it together.”
Some parking lot operators have objected to required cameras, citing the expense. Owens and Walsh say they’re concerned about surveillance. Asked why their version would still require cameras for parking garages, Owens said the risk consideration is different.
“For garages, it’s a naturally enclosed, darker space, and so when we’re thinking about a parking lot that is flat and has lighting, and maybe even increased lighting, the visibility is different,” she said.
The two have filed a motion asking the city administration for a report “on the need for surveillance cameras in surface parking lots” to include “research on the effectiveness of surveillance cameras in deterring crime, assisting law enforcement investigations, and improving criminal case outcomes, as well as in conjunction with lighting.”
Walsh says once those questions are answered in a couple months, Council could vote on cameras in parking lots before the measure goes into effect.
“The goal is for all this to be wrapped up and ready for the Jan. 1 launch date,” Walsh told WVXU.
Campaign donations
Pureval, Owens and Walsh have each accepted thousands of dollars in campaign donations from people affiliated with Chavez Properties, which owns many parking lots Downtown and has publicly opposed the original legislation. The Chavez family frequently donates to Democratic candidates, especially in local elections.
Donations to Pureval’s mayoral campaigns over the past five years total about $32,000. Pureval told WVXU earlier this year the contributions have “absolutely not” influenced his opinion on this issue.
“I've got a pretty strong history of not always agreeing with folks who have supported me in the past,” he said. “We always take into consideration input from stakeholders and community voices. But ultimately, what guides my decisions are what's in the best interest of the city as a whole.”
Donations to Owens’ City Council campaigns total $8,200; she is now running for a seat on Hamilton County Commission and has accepted an additional $8,000 in donations in 2026 alone.
Asked whether those donations influenced her effort to remove camera requirements for surface parking lots from the proposed changes, Owens told WVXU they do not.
“[With] any legislation that impacts stakeholders, having conversations and listening, I think, is an important part of arriving to something that is achieving the goals … we want to make sure we have all of the information that is needed to make sure that we’re asking the right questions and we’re asking for the right investments.”
Donations to Walsh’s City Council campaign totaled $6,000 in 2025, plus another $4,100 in 2026 to his current campaign for Ohio Treasurer.
“The contributions do not impact my willingness to negotiate on this,” Walsh told WVXU.
Chavez Properties declined an interview for WVXU’s initial reporting in May; representatives did not respond by deadline to multiple requests for comment this week.
Which version will Council support?
Budget, Finance and Governance Committee Chair Jeff Cramerding says he intends to put the mayor’s B version and the newer C version ordinances on the agenda for consideration.
The C version is signed only by the sponsors, Walsh and Owens. No Council members are co-sponsoring the mayor’s B version, although three tell WVXU they want cameras required in parking lots (Anna Albi, Mark Jeffreys, and Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney).
Evan Nolan says it’s important for one of the measures to pass and he will support both.
Cramerding, Scotty Johnson, and Ryan James each told WVXU earlier this week they planned to carefully consider both versions and had not yet decided which one to support. Their offices did not respond to a request for updated comment by deadline Thursday afternoon.
Comparing the three versions
Although the original A version from the administration is not expected to be up for a vote, all three versions are compared below.
Large parts of all three ordinances are the same; all would amend existing city law regarding operating licenses for public parking garages and lots.
All three include a new section that grants "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 they can't avoid the loss of spaces by simply redesigning the layout.
The original proposal would go into effect 30 days after passage; the B and C versions would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
All three 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."
Fencing and cameras
A version (administration)
- Garages: cameras at all entrances and exits OR on-site staff during operating hours
- Lots: fencing/barrier on perimeter AND cameras at all entrances and exits OR on-site staff during operating hours
B version (Mayor Pureval)
- Garages: cameras at all entrances and exits OR on-site staff during operating hours
- Lots: cameras at entrances and exits; fencing/barrier OR additional cameras on perimeter
C version (Council members Walsh and Owens)
- Garages: cameras at all entrances and exits OR on-site staff during operating hours
- Lots: no requirement
In all versions, the requirement for security cameras must be met in one of three ways:
- Install cameras with live monitoring by a local employee during all hours of operation
- 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
- 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.
Lighting
All three 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.
Reporting crime
The city administration’s ordinance adds a requirement that operators report “all incidents of crime” within 24 hours. The B and C versions require reports of specific crimes, including: theft, vandalism, human trafficking, prostitution, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery, rape, and drug offenses.
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.
All three ordinances expand on the existing requirements to require signage that clearly indicates payment methods available.
The B and C versions add a carve-out for parking lots with fewer 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.
Towing or immobilizing
All three 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.
Penalties
All three would significantly reduce the current 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 all three ordinances preserve.
In the original proposal, operating without a license or violating security-related rules would be a Class E3 civil offense, with a $3,000 fine for a first offense. The B and C versions reduce the penalty for security-related violations to a Class E civil offense, with a $1,250 initial fine for a first offense.
All three reduce other violations (for things like signage, snow removal, etc.) to a Class C1 civil offense, which carries a $500 initial fine for a first offense.
Read more:
