New Miami speeders want $3 million; village says it’s more like $11K


BY THE NUMBERS

44,993: People cited in 15 months of operation

2,967: People who requested an administrative hearing

852: People who appeared for an administrative hearing

177: People who appeared for a hearing, found liable and had to pay the fine

$3 million: Estimated revenue collected.

New Miami speeders are once again asking Judge Michael Oster to garnish the village's funds so they can be repaid almost $3 million illegally collected from fines under the old stationary speed cameras.

Oster has already denied the request once, but attorney Josh Engel said he believes once they tell him the village misrepresented the money they had on hand to pay the eventual judgment, Oster will change his mind. At the last hearing in June, attorneys for the village told Oster there was $1.2 million in unencumbered funds in the New Miami coffers.

Court documents show there was $769,734 in unencumbered funds on the day of the hearing and that amount had dropped to $482,346 by the end of October.

"It is now clear that, while the court was being lulled into believing that 'unencumbered funds' were — to use the court's words — 'sitting there' and thus available to pay the judgment that the court was due to to enter once the Supreme Court ruled on New Miami's jurisdictional memorandum, the village was spending the 'unencumbered funds' hand over fist," the filing reads.

The speeders’ attorneys are also chastising New Miami Solicitor Dennis Adams for not telling the judge the unencumbered figure amount was incorrect.

“Worst of all, the law director had remained silent and made no effort to correct the record even when the court observed in its entry that the ‘village has $1.2 million in funds set aside’ to satisfy any judgment in the case,” the motion reads. “There could be no reasonable excuse for the law director’s silence.”

Adams said he hadn’t seen the motion and therefore could not comment.

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to garnish all proceeds from the new speed camera program and award them attorneys fees for handling the two garnishment motions.

Retired Judge Michael Sage declared New Miami’s speed cameras unconstitutional in March 2014, and the case has been in and out of the common pleas and appellate courts. The Ohio Supreme Court declined a review of the case last summer.

The village collected $1.8 million during the 15 months the cameras were rolling.

The village contracted with Optotraffic to run the previous speed camera program, and for that service, the Maryland traffic camera business was paid $1.2 million, or 40 percent of the total fine collection amount. So the final figure the speeders want to collect is $3 million.

Since a complaint filed by two Butler County women and two Cincinnati residents, the village had incurred $98,575 in legal expenses, as of October. The village would not provide updated numbers for this article.

Before the ban was issued, village officials used the new-found funds to give raises, upgrade vehicles and pick up the tab for health insurance for employees, spending roughly $430,000 more from 2012 to 2013. The village put the brakes on spending last year, slashing $825,000 out of the 2014 budget.

The two sides were scheduled to meet with Oster, but the hearing has to be rescheduled.

James Englert, the outside counsel handling the case, said the garnishment issue likely wouldn’t be discussed at the hearing because they haven’t had an opportunity to file a response. He said he was disappointed the topic is being revisited. In the first allegation over the summer, the speeders claimed the village committed fraud by contracting with an out-of-state company. He said the court didn’t buy that argument, and this one is no better.

“The suggestion that there was fraud was overreaching in the first place, and it should never have been made,” he said. “Now the suggestion seems to be that there’s fraud because the village is spending monies on municipal expenditures, and that is not a reasonable position. I’m dismayed to be looking again at a motion that was without merit in the first place and is still without merit.”

Englert said the only topic for discussion should be on the claim the village was unjustly enriched and must return the money. If the judge finds in favor of the speeders however, Englert is arguing that only the drivers who received a notice of liability, requested a hearing and were found liable to pay the fine deserve their money back.

“If the court finds that the village is liable under Count IV, the proper measure of damages is $10,728,” Englert wrote.

Engel said the village’s perspective is far from what courts have ruled previously.

“That is a close to frivolous argument on their part,” he said. “The Ohio Supreme Court has on numerous occasions said that if you collect money under an unconstitutional statue, rule or ordinance, you have to pay it back to everyone who paid, not just those who took the time and effort to challenge it before an administrative hearing.”

About the Author