To amend section 4521.02 of the Revised Code to establish maximum late fees for civil parking tickets.
HB 653 would amend Ohio Revised Code section 4521.02 to place new limits on the fees and penalties local governments may assess for civil parking tickets. The bill keeps the existing framework that allows local authorities to treat certain parking violations as civil, rather than criminal, matters, but it adds a statewide cap on late-payment penalties: an initial late fee of no more than $10 after 30 days, a second late fee of no more than $10 after 60 days, and a total late-fee ceiling of $20 per parking infraction. It also preserves the requirement that parking-ticket response periods be at least 30 days before late penalties can begin to accrue.
The bill further restricts local governments’ ability to add collection-related charges by limiting administrative, processing, or collection fees to the lesser of actual collection cost or 25% of the original fine, and it bars any additional penalties, surcharges, or fee multipliers not expressly authorized in the section. The bill leaves intact local authority to set parking fines, including special treatment for accessible parking violations, and to authorize immobilization or impoundment of vehicles, subject to existing limits on release conditions. The act would take effect 180 days after its effective date.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at standardizing and reducing the financial burden of parking-ticket enforcement across Ohio by preventing escalating late fees and excessive add-on charges. Its practical effect would be to constrain local discretion in civil parking enforcement while still allowing municipalities and counties to issue parking tickets, set base fines within existing limits, and use vehicle immobilization or impoundment tools where authorized.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented formal support or opposition in the record here. The bill’s structure suggests likely support from those concerned about fee stacking, debt escalation, and fairness in parking enforcement, while potential contention would come from local governments that rely on late fees and collection charges to encourage compliance and cover administrative costs. The main policy tension is between consumer protection and local revenue/enforcement flexibility.
HB 653 would amend R.C. 4521.02 to impose statewide limits on late-payment penalties and collection-related charges for civil parking tickets issued under local parking ordinances, resolutions, or regulations. It would cap late fees at $10 after 30 days and another $10 after 60 days, prohibit total late penalties above $20 per infraction, and limit administrative/processing/collection fees to actual cost or 25% of the original fine, whichever is less. Local governments would retain authority to set parking fines within existing statutory limits, including higher fines for accessible parking violations, and to authorize impoundment or immobilization subject to current release restrictions.
The available record shows no committee debate, testimony, or votes, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure has a consumer-protection and anti-fee-escalation orientation that would likely appeal to advocates for fairness and limits on municipal penalties. At the same time, it may draw concern from local authorities that use late fees and collection charges to promote compliance and recover enforcement costs.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between limiting burdens on drivers and preserving local enforcement tools and revenue. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s caps on late fees, collection fees, and extra surcharges as a check on escalating parking debt. Opponents, likely local governments and municipal finance stakeholders, may argue that the bill restricts local discretion, reduces cost recovery, and could weaken incentives for timely payment of parking tickets. A secondary issue is that the bill preserves higher fines for accessible parking violations, which may be viewed as appropriate deterrence rather than a point of dispute.