MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Transportation
Seventy-second Session
March 13, 2003
The Senate Committee on Transportation was called to order by Chairman Raymond C. Shaffer, at 1:41 p.m., on Thursday, March 13, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
Senator Dennis Nolan, Vice Chairman
Senator Mark Amodei
Senator Warren B. Hardy II
Senator Terry Care
Senator Maggie Carlton
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Michael Schneider (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marsheilah Lyons, Committee Policy Analyst
Sherry Rodriguez, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations
Linda West Myers, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, GoWest Institute for Transportation Issues
James E. Smith, President, American Wheelchair Veterans Association, Nevada Paralyzed Veterans of America
Juanita Clark, Charleston Neighborhood Preservation
Jason West, American Wheelchair Veterans Association
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Karen M. Coyne, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Antonio Gutierrez, Intern for Senator Titus
Erin B. Breen, Coordinator, Traffic Safety Coalition, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada)
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association/South
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office
Fred Droes, P.E., Chief Traffic, Safety, and ITS Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation
Greg Novack, Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Carolyn Piper
Jarrell Lusk
Craig Hartman
Robert Glover, National Motorists Association
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to open the hearing with Bill Draft Request (BDR) 44-759. This BDR authorizes a government entity that is a proprietor of an airport to impose certain reasonable restrictions concerning control of aircraft noise. I will take a motion for introduction.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 44-759: Authorizes governmental entity that is proprietor of airport to impose certain reasonable restrictions concerning control of aircraft noise. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 291.)
SENATOR AMODEI MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 44-759.
SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now open the hearing with testimony in favor of Senate Bill (S.B.) 187.
SENATE BILL 187: Revises provisions governing erection and maintenance of signs to designate parking spaces for use by handicapped persons. (BDR 20-761)
Ed Gobel, Lobbyist, President, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations:
This bill is similar to S.B. 338 of the 70th Session. It allows freedom and independence to those requiring the use of a vehicle that has side-loading wheelchair lift capabilities.
We have received a number of awards from the City of Las Vegas and the Clark County Board of Commissioners for this bill and the efforts we have put into it. Clark County put these signs up approximately 1 year ago; it is working out very well.
This Legislature passed S.B. 338 of the 70th Session and S.B. 374 of the 71st Session. A survey was done asking if private businesses were in compliance with handicapped parking requirements as outlined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 484.408, especially relating to vehicles with side-loading wheelchair lifts. It was determined business owners refused to spend the funds to comply. The funds we are talking about would only be $10 per sign maximum; it is not a lot of money. If there is nothing to force them to comply, they will not.
We have come up with a bill that would have the least amount of impact on everyone. It would generate revenue for the counties and municipalities. The bill states a letter would be sent to businesses giving at least 30 to 60 days to comply, after which time they would be fined. They can appeal it through an appellate process that could be either administrative or handled by the judicial system. They would certainly have due-process rights. Are people really going to go to hire an attorney and go to court for a $10 sign? The largest parking lot in the State has 12 of these spaces, which translates to a total of $120 to put up the required signs. I do not think $120 would cover legal fees.
The City of Las Vegas and county commission are in favor. You will hear arguments today by various lobbyists for the city and counties stating parking violations are a civil infraction. The law clearly states violations are a misdemeanor. There are over $8 million in uncollected parking fees. I think we ought to go after that money, and maybe it would help the budget. I do not believe the amount of uncollected parking fees is an acceptable reason not to put up these signs.
The other argument is the city and county are not involved in erection of the signs. It is a fact they put them up all the time for neighborhood associations at taxpayer expense.
We are a people who desire freedom and independence, and are entitled to get around on our own without the State paying for an attendant to drive us. We would like to feel like human beings. Unfortunately, sometimes that is a problem. We believe this is denying handicapped citizens their constitutional rights.
I appreciate the committee’s constant indulgence and cooperation over the last three sessions to keep hearing the same thing over again. I guarantee I will double my efforts to get this through the Assembly this session. You all know I live up to my promises.
This is an issue of common decency. We have waited too long for people to voluntarily comply. The issue remains: why should we pass ordinances, as the bill requires, just getting people to put up the signs?
Twenty percent of fees collected must be held in an account used for counties and municipalities to put up their own signs rather than fine us. When you fine a government, you fine yourself. We are just saying part of the monies you collect must be used for putting up signs for counties and municipalities.
I beg you to pass this bill quickly. We have the right and responsibility to take care of those who are handicapped but are able to take care of themselves. Handicapped people do not want a handout. They want to be independent and on their own. They have earned that right.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you, Mr. Gobel. Will the people in Las Vegas, who are in favor of this bill, please come forward to testify?
Linda West Myers, Lobbyist, Council of Nevada Veterans Organizations, GoWest Institute for Transportation Issues:
Anyone could find themselves in a position, whether through illness, accident, or injury, where they need to have side-loading wheelchair spaces available to them. The challenge we have are those people who park blocking the accessibility for the side-loading vans. These issues need to be addressed. It is especially important for our veterans because they have sacrificed so much for the rest of us to have the freedoms we enjoy. It is simply a crime not to have the accessibility.
From a marketing standpoint, in southern Nevada, we have car rental agencies that have wheelchair accessible vans with lifts available for rent to people who need them on a temporary basis. I urge and implore you to pass this bill.
James E. Smith, President, American Wheelchair Veterans Association, Nevada Paralyzed Veterans of America:
I have been in a wheelchair for 47 years and using a wheelchair van for the last 10 years. I strongly urge you, as a consumer, veteran, and handicapped person, to agree and sign this bill. Last night I went to a local casino for dinner. There were four spots with proper signage. Each one had automobiles parked in them. I had to park a half-mile away.
Juanita Clark, Charleston Neighborhood Preservation:
This is another bill that will help preserve our neighborhoods and the dignity of individuals. We are here to accommodate and make things a little easier. I concur wholeheartedly with this bill. It is way overdue. It is sad it needed to be introduced again.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you.
Jason West, American Wheelchair Veterans Association:
I would like to add my voice to the rest of the people here to have this bill passed. Thank you for your time.
Ms. West Myers:
Chairman Shaffer, that concludes testimony in Las Vegas.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you for coming in today. Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Hardy:
Mr. Gobel, is there anything in the law preventing local governments from doing this now? This bill contemplates mandating the board of county commissioners of a county to adopt an ordinance. It says the board shall adopt an ordinance. Is there anything that says they could not do it? You indicated most local governments are supportive. Are they somehow prevented by law from adopting these kinds of ordinances?
Mr. Gobel:
As you know, unless it says, “shall,” many ordinances do not get proposed or enacted. We do not have the strength or ability to go to each county or municipality in the State to do this. Since NRS 484.408 governs the general rules of handicapped parking, it is the perfect place. They shall institute these ordinances which will generate revenue. Douglas County and several others, in the past, have supported a mandate.
Senator Hardy:
Unless I am reading this wrong, NRS 484.408 does not apply only to State properties. It applies to all properties. This is not being enforced, is that the problem?
Mr. Gobel:
Counties or municipalities cannot impose a penalty unless it is in this bill. If it is not in this ordinance, it cannot be enforced in this State.
Senator Hardy:
Who enforces NRS 484.408? What you are talking about doing is already in the law. I am sure these signs are required by code.
Mr. Gobel:
No, it is not being enforced by code. We checked with the city, county, and plan checkers. It is not a requirement they follow. They are saying until it is codified in State law, they will not enforce. There never has been a penalty to force people to install these signs.
Senator Hardy:
If that is the case, we have a problem. This is the law that says any property owner has to comply with NRS 484.408.
Mr. Gobel:
Yes, it says with 60 or more parking spaces.
Senator Hardy:
We did some expansion at our family business. We added additional parking spaces to accommodate handicapped parking. The code enforcement people required it.
Mr. Gobel:
It is not part of the code. Just so you understand, this bill does not require additional handicapped parking space. This is about erecting signs that comply with the law. This is an approximate $10-per-space obligation.
Senator Hardy:
I am confused. We have a law we want to put in county ordinances because they are not obeying the law at the State level.
Mr. Gobel:
This makes no changes in the way we do business in this State. It has always been the counties and municipalities who enforce parking. The State does not give out parking tickets. The counties and municipalities give out parking tickets. This is why we have to do this at the county and municipality level.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there more questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
How many citations are issued in Clark County for people parking illegally in handicapped parking spots?
Mr. Gobel:
We have not done a survey in 2 years. I can get the information to you. The fact remains the law is not being enforced. Once again, this does not change the way we are currently operating. Enforcement has always been done at county or municipality levels. The highway patrol is not required to give out parking tickets. It is only the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police department (Metro) or the Municipality that does enforcement. We are only saying if you do not put up the signs, the county or municipality cannot enforce a penalty.
Senator Nolan:
If someone receives a parking violation, they do not go before the board of county commissioners to appeal that citation. Is that correct?
Mr. Gobel:
You do not appeal parking tickets through the board of county commissioners. You pay your parking fines through an apparatus set up by ordinance within the county.
Senator Nolan:
Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will now take testimony in opposition to this bill.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
This law currently exists in NRS. The question is enforcement. This bill is asking to transfer the responsibilities of enforcement onto local governments. There was discussion yesterday in the Senate Committee on Government Affairs regarding a bill that would give us more flexibility to pass ordinances so we can do some enforcement of our own. Senator Raggio stated he does not want the county to pass ordinances that would take money generated from misdemeanors away from the State.
The bill would shift responsibility to the local level. Local government would be involved in the enforcement, which would be a great burden especially in unincorporated Clark County where we do not have authority to do that kind of enforcement. We do not have policing abilities like Las Vegas does in terms of parking enforcement.
There is approximately $8 million in uncollected parking fines. There is no mechanism in this bill allowing us to collect our costs and expenses to do enforcement. The State or Metro is not enforcing collection of the parking fines. They do not have the resources or abilities to do the enforcement. We are only shifting it down to the local level across the State.
In Clark County when individuals apply for certificates of occupancy through the building department, they are required to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or they do not get that certificate of occupancy. Contrary to what Mr. Gobel stated, our plans checkers go through plans to ensure they are in compliance, have proper parking and signage, or they do not get the certificate to open a business or occupy the structure. We believe the best enforcement is at the point of entry, making sure the plans are in compliance before applicants open their doors and allow customers to enter. We think we are already in compliance.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there a reason why no signs are up if plans checkers have been reviewing plans all this time?
Mr. Musgrove:
I do not know of any instances where there are no signs. I would like for Mr. Gobel to provide some evidence of actual facilities where signage is incorrect. Perhaps at that point they can make those businesses aware. As he said, why would anyone want to receive fines when all they have to do is pay $10 for a sign? This bill requires local government to produce signs and post them. We think it is an unfunded mandate as well as something we should not be in the business of producing and posting signs.
Karen M. Coyne, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
Nevada Revised Statutes 484.408, particularly subsection 4, is exactly how we would like it to stay. It clarifies that private property owners are responsible for posting private signs on private property, and public entities are responsible for posting on public property.
There is a mechanism in place through the Department of Justice to file complaints related to issues of noncompliance. I would like to clarify a few things Mr. Gobel stated. The NRS does allow for city government to impose civil fines. I just want to clarify our parking enforcement citations are actually civil infractions, not misdemeanors. Nevada Revised Statutes 484.999 allows for a misdemeanor citation to be issued to a person who is not compliant with posting of ADA signs.
From a municipal point of view, this bill is comprehensive, but extremely complex in what it is asking us to do. We are to inspect private property, post, erect, and maintain signs on private property. We are to issue notices by certified mail of noncompliance. We are to follow up, which means we have to inspect the property every day for noncompliance. We have to provide a due process hearing for individuals cited and an appeals process in the event they want to go that route.
We are projecting a significant financial impact by asking our employees to do something we feel is a duplication of what is in place through the federal government.
Kimberly McDonald, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas:
We believe this is an unfunded mandate. To add another layer of bureaucracy would not be better government. For all the reasons previously cited, we believe it will have a burdensome fiscal impact. This is a private property issue of noncompliance regarding handicapped signs.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Care:
I would like to ask Dan Musgrove, Karen Coyne, and Kimberly McDonald how they understand section 1, subsection 1? The bill refers to cities and counties. Section 1 subsection 1, only refers to counties. The board of the county commissioners of a county shall adopt procedures. The word “shall” means it is mandatory, pursuant to which the board may order compliance. The former is mandatory; the latter is discretionary. In other words, under this law you have to adopt the ordinances, but you do not have to do anything. Is that the way you understand this?
Mr. Musgrove:
We agree. It is ambiguous and all the more reason we need to stay with the existing statute. It is a matter of enforcement and who needs to do the enforcement. This is our position.
Senator Hardy:
Nevada Revised Statutes clearly state the jurisdiction over these issues is concurrent between the State and local governments, but who writes the ticket? If I park in a handicapped spot illegally, I will get a civil ticket, correct?
Ms. Coyne:
With the exception of some parking enforcement at McCarran International Airport and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the City of Las Vegas is the only entity in southern Nevada that has a parking enforcement function. We do enforce where handicapped signs are properly posted. It is a civil infraction.
Senator Hardy:
Would you also cite me if I am sitting in a handicapped parking spot at a 7‑Eleven, even though it is on private property, and the courts have ruled that is not illegal?
Ms. Coyne:
Any parking infraction in a lot open to the public would indeed warrant a citation.
Senator Hardy:
I would get a ticket and need to appear before a judge to pay fines identified in NRS 484.408, correct?
Ms. Coyne:
It is actually an administrative hearing civil process.
Senator Hardy:
I would still be subject to those fines. Is there a mechanism in place to deal with those issues?
Ms. Coyne:
Yes sir.
Senator Hardy:
Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any more comments or questions from the committee?
Senator Nolan:
Do you have an idea of how many citations are written in the city of Las Vegas for individuals parking illegally in handicapped parking spaces?
Ms. Coyne:
I do not have those figures but I can get them for you.
Senator Nolan:
I believe this is a problem. We see it all the time. I have seen people with disabilities having to park long distances away because people without a disability will park in places where it is illegal. I believe there should be some strong enforcement. Mr. Musgrove, the City of Las Vegas enforces this but the county does not. Is that correct?
Mr. Musgrove:
The statute does not allow for us to have parking enforcement officers. It would be the responsibility of Metro to cite those individuals in unincorporated Clark County. In talking with Metro, I understand there is a great deal of enforcement on their side, including informants. Clark County does not have a parking enforcement division. We would need to be enabled through statute to carry out that function. The City of Las Vegas already has enforcement capabilities.
Senator Nolan:
The police department does have serious responsibilities and a constant shortage of officers. Writing parking citations for handicapped issues is probably not at the top of their list. I would be interested in finding out what we are doing to enforce this and help people.
Senator Hardy:
The real issue Mr. Gobel is bringing to us is not illegal parking in a handicapped space, but the business owner not complying with NRS 484.408. This is more than just a police department issue. This goes to code and code enforcement.
Mr. Musgrove:
All the things you have talked about are already in legislation. It is a matter of the public making us aware of those who are not compliant. We do not have the mechanism to go out and enforce. I believe when Metro catches those individuals, they do.
Senator Hardy:
Senate Bill 187 does not give you any more authority than you have now. As I understand it, you are saying you do not have the tools to enforce the mandates in it.
Mr. Musgrove:
That is part of the answer. Through the building permitting process, those things are being done already. If a sign is not up, we need to be informed.
Senator Hardy:
Initially, when the building is under construction, the signs are required by code. The compliance on an ongoing basis is where it is slipping.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any more comments on this bill?
Mr. Gobel:
I would like to give you some examples of where these signs are not posted. The malls in Las Vegas do not have the vehicle with side-loading wheelchair lift signs nor do they have no parking signs. We do not need the Department of Justice to tell us how to give out parking tickets. It is clearly the responsibility of the county and municipality. The fact remains it is not being done. It is not part of plans checking. This is not an unfunded mandate. It gives you the ability to collect funds and cover the cost. I disagree with there being any impact. Metro, which is a county agency, is required by law to enforce this. If they are not going to enforce, we have a more serious problem.
Senator Nolan:
There are obviously differences of opinions between your testimony and the municipalities. You claim the problem exists. They claim it does not. I would appreciate it if you could provide hard data, such as pictures or something else showing this has not been done. If you could provide hard data, you would have more support for this bill. Without solid facts it is going to be tough to pass something this mandating.
Mr. Gobel:
We will take over 100 pictures of places where there are no signs.
Senator Nolan:
Okay, thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there more questions from the committee on S.B. 187? We will close the hearing on S.B. 187 and open the hearing on S.B. 220.
SENATE BILL 220: Repeals prohibition against certain use by governmental entity of photographic, video or digital equipment for gathering evidence for issuance of traffic citation. (BDR 43-37)
Antonio Gutierrez, Intern for Senator Titus:
On behalf of Erin Breen, the Senate Committee on Judiciary introduced Senate Bill 220. Ms. Breen is from SAFE Community Partnership, a public outreach program of the Transportation Research Center. I will turn this portion of testimony over to her.
Erin B. Breen, Coordinator, Traffic Safety Coalition, Transportation Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
I am in support of S.B. 220. This repeals NRS 484.910, which is a ban on photo enforcement. I have a prepared statement for your review (Exhibit C) and ask it be entered into the record. I have provided the committee with packets of additional information (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee?
Senator Amodei:
I am looking at the result section on page 3 of the information packet you provided, and the figures are fairly significant. Do you have any data on violations pertaining to crashes and expenses that would indicate any effect on insurance premiums in those jurisdictions?
Ms. Breen:
I do not.
Senator Amodei:
With a decline in these types of catastrophic injuries and claim-producing incidents you have presented, could there be the expectation of a subsequent drop in auto insurance premiums as a result of setting up this type of enforcement operation?
Ms. Breen:
Anytime a program is put in place to enhance public safety, there is the potential of reducing insurance premiums. Most insurance companies will not commit until they see it works community to community.
Senator Amodei:
I am curious about the thought process that went into the repeal of this bill as opposed to asking for State authorization. You have several instances where you said you would like to have this repealed in order to pursue it at a local level. Would you share your thought process about why you prefer to see this authorized at a local level as opposed to the State level?
Ms. Breen:
The reason is to give the opportunity to each local jurisdiction. Data shows this is not a problem all over the State. I know I am going to run into a few more roadblocks in northern rather than in southern Nevada. It is purely mercenary on my part. I want this in my community. It is not an easy effort to make this happen in Clark County, which has a critical need for the implementation of this program.
Senator Amodei:
Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any other questions from the committee? Is there any more testimony to be given on S.B. 220?
Lisa A. Foster, Lobbyist, California State Automobile Association (dba AAA Nevada):
We would like to go on record as being in support of S.B. 220 as it pertains to the prohibition against red-light cameras. We have seen it help reduce the crash rate in a number of communities. The American Automobile Association of Nevada (dba AAA Nevada) recently did a survey in Las Vegas on aggressive driving. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed considered red‑light running an aggressive driving behavior. More importantly, when we asked what law enforcement could do to lessen the problem of aggressive driving the number one answer was better enforcement of red-light running. People in southern Nevada think it is a problem and feel something should be done.
This only repeals the law. I would like to go on record with what AAA Nevada suggests. We would like to see the citation go to the driver, whether or not he or she is the registered owner. We would like to make sure traffic signals, where cameras are in place, always comply with all applicable traffic engineering standards and principles. In other words, we want to make sure yellow lights are not slowed down or manipulated in any way. We want motorists informed when cameras are in use. The most important issue is that government agencies should be the ones who determine locations for placement, oversee the entire operation and process, make sure vendors are operating the cameras at the will of local governments, and are not allowed to have any decision-making power of their own.
Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police (Metro), and Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association/South:
We are in support of this legislation and offer an amendment (Exhibit E). The mere repeal of this does not give counties authority to enact red-light cameras. Cities can if they use it for parking tickets and administrative violations. We recommend it stay at an administrative-type or parking-violation level so identifying the driver is not mandatory. It will be difficult to photograph a driver. It is much easier to photograph the rear vehicle plate. If we can make intersections safe by sending out administrative citations, which are not moving violations, we have accomplished the same thing.
There is one change on the amendment (Exhibit E). In the last sentence of section 1, I ask you to strike the portion that says, “within a vehicle or other housing device.” It is unnecessary. It should say, “The equipment may be installed temporarily or permanently at any intersection.”
Chairman Shaffer:
Are there any questions for Mr. Olsen?
Senator Care:
When we started this 2 years ago, I do not believe the bill, as introduced, was what we ended up with in the end. I believe it started out stating you could not use cameras for the purposes of citing vehicles running red lights. After it went to the Assembly, we ended up with something entirely different. Is that correct?
Mr. Olsen:
To the best of my knowledge you are correct.
Senator Care:
I am sure the technology has changed in the last 2 years. I would be interested in hearing more about the administrative fine as opposed to a moving violation. I am wondering how this would work in a judicial setting if someone wanted to contest. With this equipment it is going to be presumed they ran the red light because of the evidence in the videotape. In fact the burden should be on the State to demonstrate the violation. A person could say he was not in the car, or perhaps there was a car behind them and he did not want to get rear‑ended, so he accelerated. What would happen in a courtroom if someone wanted to contest this?
Mr. Olsen:
There are a couple of different ways this can be done. Either a city or county contracts with a company, purchases equipment, and installs it. The city or county would mail a photograph showing the license plate, along with the citation, to the registered owner of the vehicle. It is operated exactly the same way as a parking ticket. You can come to court and contest if you wish. In Las Vegas, you do not appear before a municipal judge. There is a hearing officer who handles parking citations.
The technology is in place to photograph both the front and rear of vehicles. It gets the plate in the rear and the driver’s face from the front. It is twice as expensive. You can contract with some companies to handle everything. We can make intersections safe without punishing a driver by adding points to their drivers’ licenses, I think we have accomplished our goal. How it would play out in court, I do not know. Police would not be involved because it is not a citation given by a police officer.
Senator Care:
Did you say there is technology that can photograph, in some cases only the front plate or the rear plate? In Nevada, you are required to have two plates. It seems to me people do not want to drill holes in their bumpers in a Lexus. We are seeing more cars with plates on the rear but not the front. What would you do in that case? What kind of technology could be used?
Mr. Olsen:
The two available technologies I have seen were in brochures. They were not actual devices. One technology photographs the rear of a car clear enough to read the license plate. It shows the point in the intersection where the car was located at the time of the photograph, and the color of the light. The other technology has two cameras operating simultaneously. One camera photographs the rear plate and shows where the car was located. The other camera photographs the driver behind the wheel, the picture is clear enough to identify the driver.
From a law enforcement perspective, our goal is to make intersections safe. It is not to generate revenue, or punish a driver with points or demerits on their license resulting in a higher insurance rate payment.
Senator Care:
There are cameras in place in Clark County for the control of traffic flow. Is that correct?
Mr. Olsen:
Yes sir.
Senator Care:
Is there a continuously running videotape?
Mr. Olsen:
Yes sir, the tape is running continuously.
Senator Care:
Does this mean you can currently use videotape for evidence in an auto accident, but not used to issue a citation to the person who caused the accident?
Mr. Olsen:
No sir, we cannot. Speaking for Metro, those are traffic control intersection cameras and the county and city traffic departments run them. We do not use the tapes. We conduct our own separate investigations outside of those cameras.
Senator Care:
There is nothing to prohibit the use of those tapes in a trial. Is that correct? The videotape actually captures the accident.
Mr. Olsen:
Under current law, it does prevent us from using it for traffic.
Senator Care:
For the citation but not for determining fault of the person causing the accident?
Mr. Olsen:
We cannot use it as evidence.
Senator Care:
You cannot use videotape to issue a ticket, but you can use it at trial to determine fault. Am I wrong?
Mr. Olsen:
Senator Care, you are correct.
Senator Care:
Okay.
Mr. Olsen:
The only time I am aware of it being used in southern Nevada was for a homicide. The angle of a camera showed a business in the distance across the intersection. They were trying to determine if there was anything on the tape showing the suspect’s vehicle as it left. It did not.
Senator Care:
The current prohibition does not prohibit a home video, just a video shot by political entities?
Mr. Olsen:
That is correct, sir.
Senator Care:
Thank you.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else wishing to testify?
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14:
The biggest objection to this is, although driving is a privilege, you also have the right as a citizen to have a trial. Who do you take on when you go to court, a machine? Mr. Olsen offered an amendment with which we can live. I would not oppose that amendment. I think totally repealing this is a mistake. Under the current law, you run into a legal problem using this at an accident scene because of the citation. If there is a crime involved, it could be used in civil court, as was pointed out, to hunt down a criminal photographed by the equipment. That was not the intent of the law when passed last time. We want to be able to use cameras at accident scenes. We would rather have police officers issue citations. I understand there are problems. As long as it is not a moving violation or criminal violation, we would not be opposed to repealing this.
You should have the right to use it as evidence. The bill needs some work and it should be in a subcommittee. I think there are some good reasons, not so much to repeal the law as to fix it, so it is reasonable for everyone.
James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff's Office:
We support the amendment. We do not believe there should be criminal sanctions for implementation of this bill. Because of the expense of this equipment, the cameras are only going to be used at high-incident intersections where there are a substantial number of traffic accidents. In years past, companies who provided this equipment took a percentage from the citations generated. We have never agreed because we felt it was improper. One of these companies will lease or sell equipment to the entity at a base price. It is not based on the number of citations written. This should not be used for profit or for revenue from tickets written for the entity or company but be based solely on the idea of lowering the number of accidents at intersections.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you Mr. Nadeau. Are there any questions from the committee? Is there anyone else who would like to testify in favor or against this bill?
Fred Droes, P.E., Chief Traffic, Safety, and ITS Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation:
The Nevada Department of Transportation is in favor of this bill. We believe it is a tool we can use to modify driver behavior, and improve crash statistics on the State's highways.
Chairman Shaffer:
Are you familiar with the proposed amendment?
Mr. Droes:
I have not seen the amendment.
Chairman Shaffer:
We will get you a copy if you need it.
Greg Novack, Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration:
We see this as a national problem. Roughly 1100 people die each year at signalized intersections. I am in support of the bill as written.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
I am speaking against the bill. We urge you to vote no on S.B. 220. Colorado’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling declaring Denver’s photo radar program illegal. I have prepared a document for the committee’s review (Exhibit F).
We are concerned about spy cameras. We feel they are not a good idea, especially when you cannot identify who was in the car. We are concerned about the right to face your accuser. It is a constitutional right. We cannot do that if we are looking at a machine that cannot answer questions. We would be ticketing a car, not a person. How many accidents are drug or alcohol related? We should be looking at that.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you for your testimony. Are there comments from the committee?
Senator Care:
If we repeal the existing statute, and that is all we do, have we really changed anything? Would it require enabling legislation for cities and counties to have anything to do with the cameras?
Chairman Shaffer:
We are going to refer this to a subcommittee. We have some conflicting testimony and will need to work this further. We will now take additional testimony from Las Vegas on S.B. 220.
Carolyn Piper:
I am here to ask that you please support S.B. 220. I also have written testimony for your review (Exhibit G) and request it be entered into the record.
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in Las Vegas wishing to speak on this bill?
Jarrell Lusk:
I am against S.B. 220. I was a fleet manager in San Diego with approximately 200 different drivers. Citations would get sent to my office because the company was the registered owner of the vehicles. Along with the citation was a notice saying if you do not take care of this, the registration on your automobile will be revoked. I had to go to court to view the photo and determine who committed the violation. The photograph showed the front of the vehicle and the people inside. I was not the person in the vehicle where this happened. I was the one, as the company manager, who had to either pay the ticket for that particular violation or determine the person who violated the law. The citation was issued to that person. It would take me 2 to 4 hours to straighten these things out, and I was not even the guilty party.
I later found out that San Diego was manipulating the signals; they had shortened the yellow lights. The fines increased dramatically. Certain other improprieties were committed with the computers. It was believed that the computers were manipulated in such a manner to increase the amount of revenue generated from these citations. This particular case, which was covered by one of the other witnesses earlier, the company providing the equipment split the fines in this case with San Diego. The more fines you have, the greater the revenue. It was not a safety device for San Diego; it was a moneymaking device. Bottom line, I was guilty until I proved myself innocent by identifying who the driver was in the car. In this country, a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
I am also the father of identical twin girls. There is no photo that would determine which of them was behind the wheel of a vehicle. When the citation is issued by a police officer in person, there is no mistake as to the identity of the driver. I feel this is not the correct way to fix the problem of running lights or speeding in the State.
Chairman Shaffer:
Is there anyone else in Las Vegas wishing to testify?
Ms. Clark:
I am speaking against S.B. 220. I am astounded this would come forward. It is not a constitutional issue. It is not the right thing to do.
Craig Hartman:
There are some real problems with photo enforcement. The real fault with intersection violations lies with people responsible for placing, maintaining, and operating traffic lights. Using simple traffic engineering practices to eliminate intersection violations would be more effective. High numbers of violations continue long after cameras have been installed, otherwise we would not be here trying to repeal existing legislation. Red-light violations are engineering problems, not enforcement problems.
Robert Glover, National Motorists Association:
We are a public advocacy group representing motorists’ rights. I have a letter from James J. Baxter, President of the National Motorists Association. I would like to have submitted for the record (Exhibit H).
Chairman Shaffer:
Thank you all for coming forward. I am going to place this bill with a subcommittee for further discussion. Hearing no further business, this meeting is now adjourned at 3:46 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Rodriguez,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer, Chairman
DATE: