A Cincinnati City Council committee voted Monday to approve new security regulations for public parking lots and garages. A final vote is expected Wednesday, months after the issue was first introduced earlier this year.
The rules are aimed at deterring crime, especially car break-ins. Cincinnati Police Department data shows an increasing percentage of stolen firearms are taken from vehicles.
"There are too many guns out there, and the fact that so many are being stolen from cars and so many are being stolen from cars in lots — we have to get a hold of that," said Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney. "There are just too many shootings out there."
Two versions of the ordinance were on the agenda and both passed. Assuming the measures are voted on in the same order on Wednesday, the stricter version will go into effect.
That is the known as the "B version," and was proposed by Mayor Aftab Pureval as a compromise to address concerns and opposition to the original ordinance proposed by city administration earlier this year.
A "C version" was sponsored by Council members Meeka Owens and Seth Walsh with further compromises, most notably removing the requirement for security cameras in parking lots (while keeping the mandate for garages).
Opposition from parking operators
A few parking lot operators spoke during public comment.
"Version B goes too far," said Martin Chavez of Chavez Properties. "Version C represents a meaningful compromise, and I urge everyone here today to choose compromise."
Chavez Properties owns and operates many surface lots Downtown. As WVXU previously reported, people affiliated with the company have donated about $32,000 to Pureval's mayoral campaigns over the past five years; $8,200 to Owens' City Council campaign and another $8,000 in 2026 for her campaign for Hamilton County Commission; as well as $6,000 to Walsh's City Council campaign, plus $4,100 in 2026 to his current campaign for Ohio Treasurer.
All three told WVXU these donations did not influence their opinion on the issue. Chavez Properties declined an interview for WVXU’s initial reporting in May, and representatives did not respond by deadline to multiple requests for comment last week.
Joe Levine of Levine Properties wanted the committee to oppose both versions, or at least delay a vote. A representative of Urban Sites also spoke in opposition to both versions. Both companies say the requirements amount to an "unfunded mandate" for private businesses.
A representative of 3CDC, which operates many lots and garages, spoke in favor of the changes.
Council split on cameras in parking lots
All nine council members voted for one or both of the ordinances; debate centered on the primary difference between the B version and C version.
The original proposal would have required surface parking lots to have fencing or other barriers around the perimeter, as well as security cameras at entrances and exits. Or, instead of cameras, the lot could have on-site staff during all hours of operation.
Pureval's B version allows surface lots to have either perimeter fencing or security cameras that cover the full perimeter. The requirement for either entrance/exit cameras or on-site staff is the same.
The C version removes any requirement for fencing or security cameras for surface parking lots, while maintaining the requirement for garages.
Owens and Walsh say they're concerned about increased surveillance.
"As a city, we are actively evaluating how and where surveillance technology should be deployed," Owens said Monday. "The C version strikes the right balance. It strengthens safety standards, incorporates stakeholder feedback, preserves parking capacity, and takes a measured approach to expanding surveillance requirements."
This version was on the agenda first. Council members asked questions of city officials, including Cincinnati Police Department representatives, about data on break-ins and stolen firearms.
Senior Crime Analyst Jillian Desmond said police data indicates 35% of car break-ins occur in surface parking lots; 28% on street parking; 11% at single-family homes; 9% at multi-family properties; and 10% at parking garages.
"To have a carve-out for parking lots when they are driving a substantial portion of these car break-ins makes zero sense to me," said Council member Anna Albi.
Desmond also cited national data indicating the combination of lighting and cameras is effective at reducing crime in parking lots and garages, but especially in surface lots.
After extensive debate, the C version passed 5-4.
Voting in favor: Owens, Walsh, Jeff Cramerding, Ryan James, and Evan Nolan
Voting against: Mark Jeffreys, Anna Albi, Scotty Johnson, and Lemon Kearney
After a bit more discussion, the B version passed 8-1, with only Walsh voting against it.
What will change for lots and garages
If passed Wednesday, the rules will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2027, with 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
- Garages: security cameras required at all vehicle and pedestrian entrances and exits OR on-site staff during operating hours
- Lots: On-site staff during operating hours, OR: security cameras required at entrances and exits, AND either perimeter fencing/barrier OR additional cameras covering the perimeter
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
Parking lots and garages must 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.
The proposed changes expand on the existing requirements to require signage that clearly indicates payment methods available.
Also, parking lots with fewer than 100 spaces 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
A parking garage or lot operator would be prohibited from towing a vehicle, or attaching immobilization equipment to a vehicle, within the first 20 minutes of arrival.
Operators must also file a monthly report listing each vehicle towed or immobilized.
Hardship
A new section to the municipal code would authorize 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.
Penalties
Proposed changes 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.
Under the ordinance likely to pass, 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 penalty for security-related violations would be a Class E civil offense, with a $1,250 initial fine for a first offense.
Other violations (for things like signage, snow removal, etc.) would be a Class C1 civil offense, which carries a $500 initial fine for a first offense.
Read more:
