Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin is lining up behind a state bill that would push the tiny Village of Brice to cover more of the costs tied to its automated speed-camera program. The move comes after Brice issued thousands of camera tickets and after Hardin himself got one, prompting him to start asking why so many drivers passing through the village are getting hit with what they say feels like an unfair financial squeeze.
What the bill would do
House Bill 536 would overhaul how municipal court operating costs are divvied up so that a municipality's share reflects where criminal and civil caseloads originate, including civil traffic tickets, instead of relying on defendants' home addresses. Under the bill text, a city or village that generates an outsized share of camera-based traffic cases would have to pick up a larger share of court expenses. Ohio Legislature
Hardin's push after getting a ticket
Hardin says he started digging into the Brice operation after receiving a camera ticket in December and paying the fine. He later posted about it online to spotlight how the cameras are being used. As reported by The Columbus Dispatch, Hardin called the village's practices unfair to Columbus drivers and said he supports state action that would shift more of the financial burden back onto Brice.
Tickets, revenue and court strain
According to The Columbus Dispatch, Brice has filed more than 15,000 camera-issued tickets since bringing the devices back in 2024, generating significant revenue while a private vendor pockets roughly 40 percent of what comes in. "The thousands of tickets from Brice have created a tremendous burden on court staff," a spokesperson for Franklin County Clerk of Courts Lori Tyack told the paper, adding that the clerk's office has asked Columbus for funding to hire extra staff to handle the flood of cases.
Brice officials defend the program
Village leaders and Brice police counter that the camera setup is first and foremost a safety tool around Brice Christian Academy, aimed at catching drivers who ignore a school-zone speed limit rather than serving as a cash machine. Chief Delano "Bud" Bauchmoyer told reporters that automated enforcement helps deter repeat speeders and protects students, according to reporting by WOSU.
How the cameras operate
The cameras sit near Brice Christian Academy on Brice Road at the Chatterton and Refugee intersection and typically run during school arrival and dismissal times. They issue civil notices rather than criminal citations. That after-the-fact enforcement model, paired with the revenue split with a private vendor, is at the center of lawmakers' argument that the system creates skewed financial incentives, according to local reporting. Dalmartv
Where the bill stands
HB 536 is now parked in the Ohio House Local Government Committee and is waiting for a hearing while sponsors make their case for the change. Legislative tracking shows the bill was introduced last fall and remains in committee as lawmakers weigh testimony and possible budget impacts. LegiScan
Legal and fiscal implications
Under the bill's language, auditors and chief fiscal officers would be required to meet regularly to split up a court's operating costs among municipalities based on where cases originated. A municipality could be on the hook for any portion of another jurisdiction's share that the clerk determines has not been paid. The setup is intended to strip away the incentive for small municipalities to lean heavily on camera revenue to fund local services, but it could also trigger legal challenges and would quickly change the financial calculus behind contracts with private camera vendors. Ohio Legislature
Bottom line
For Columbus drivers and city officials, the fight comes down to who should cover the administrative cost of thousands of camera-issued tickets. If HB 536 moves forward, it will force a broader debate over whether tiny municipalities should be able to pull in substantial revenue from traffic enforcement while the county court system and neighboring taxpayers carry much of the cost of processing the cases.
