Ohio Municipal League
175 South Third Street
Suite 510
Columbus, Ohio 43215

614-221-4349 Office
614-221-4390 Fax

email:
Legislative Inquiries
John Mahoney
General Inquiries
info@omunileague.org

For email inquiries to the OML, it would be most helpful if you would include your name, position, city or village you represent. 

Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need further contact with you.

Please type “OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam.

OML E- BULLETIN
If you would like to sign up for the E-Bulletin, send an email here: info@omunileague.org
 In the e-mail, indicate that you would like to be taken off the paper Bulletin list.

SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE ALERT

Date:    November 12, 2004 

To:       All Mayors

From: Susan J. Cave, Executive Director

Mayor and Municipal Court Legislation

During this lame duck session, we expect activity involving two pieces of legislation that would affect mayors’ courts and municipal courts.

The first piece of legislation is HB 260. Prior to its passage in the House, an amendment was added to that legislation that would impact some mayors’ courts and some municipal courts.

Under the provisions of that amendment to HB 260, any court fees imposed by a municipal court on itself, under sections 1901.26 or 1901.261 of the 0RC, would also have to be imposed, in the future, by all mayors’ courts in the municipal court’s jurisdiction, if those fees had been imposed prior to the establishment of each specific mayor’s court. The fees imposed by the mayor’s court would have to be remitted to the municipal court for the court’s use. Fees imposed under 1901.26 are used for things such as buildings and equipment. Fees imposed under 1901.261 are used for court computerization. It is clear from the language that fees imposed by a municipal court after a mayor’s court is established do not have to be collected by a mayor’s court.

The second piece of legislation is HB 483. Though that bill is still in the House and not scheduled for a hearing, there are rumors that there is an attempt underway to have the provisions of HB 483 put in the state capital-spending bill, which will be passed in the lame duck session. Under the provisions of HB 483, a county commission can impose a court cost of up to $5 on all moving traffic violations in the county. This fee is to be remitted by all courts to the county to pay for “criminal justice regional information systems.” Once the county has collected enough from these additional costs to pay for these information systems, it can declare a surplus in the fund and spend those surplus funds to improve the computer capabilities of any law enforcement agency in the county.

As written, we will oppose this bill being added to any other piece of legislation in the lame duck. Giving the commissioners the unilateral power to impose such costs is unfair. To then give them the unilateral power to use surplus funds to fund any old computer thing the sheriff might want (we truly doubt any municipal police agency will see a dime of the surplus) is ridiculous.

We hope you will talk to your legislators and give them your views on both of these pieces of legislation.