Pilot proposal would let NDOT and local authorities use cameras in active work zones; supporters cite worker safety, opponents warn of hidden costs and privacy

CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 402 would create a limited pilot program authorizing automated traffic-enforcement cameras in temporary traffic-control zones while workers are present. Supporters told the Assembly Ways and Means Committee the measure aims to reduce speeding and protect road workers; opponents raised fiscal, privacy and enforcement concerns.

Sponsor Assemblymember Selena Torres Faucette described the bill as limited to "where highway construction maintenance or repair is being conducted and when workers are present to enforce infractions of 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit." She said a peace officer must review camera evidence before a civil infraction is issued and that civil penalties for violations would be capped at $200 with a $100 bond cap. The bill includes a requirement that any excess revenue beyond operational costs can be used for public infrastructure.

Supporters included the Associated General Contractors (AGC) Nevada Chapter, labor unions representing flaggers and crew members, Granite Construction and NDOT. Alexis Moderex of the AGC said vendors exist nationally and that different contract structures can allow vendors to front upfront costs and be reimbursed from citation revenue. Joe Harrington of NDOT said the department's fiscal note was removed after the first reprint and that, under current assumptions, a vendor would cover upfront costs.

Opponents argued the fiscal estimate is uncertain and that enforcement cameras can create perverse revenue incentives. Nick Shepack of the Fines and Fees Justice Center said either the public bears the cost or the program generates large ticket volumes — both problematic outcomes. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office cited Sacramento's red light program shutdown as an example where costs outpaced revenues and warned the state lacks clear upfront cost and revenue estimates. The ACLU of Nevada urged a no vote, calling the program a surveillance risk and calling the $0 fiscal note "dubious."

The Department of Public Safety and Nevada Highway Patrol testified in neutral to note potential fiscal impacts if cameras are installed on roadways under their jurisdiction. DPS said highway patrol is largely highway-funded and does not receive citation revenue, creating potential misalignment if the agency becomes responsible for reviewing citations without a revenue stream to cover the work.

The sponsor's reprint added procurement and reporting provisions, including a requirement that public owners solicit bids in accordance with NRS and that local authorities report citation data annually to the interim committee on growth and infrastructure.

Ending: The bill's sponsor and supporters framed the pilot as narrowly tailored to worker safety while opponents urged caution over costs, privacy and long-term surveillance risks; the committee recessed without a vote on AB402.