With all the redevelopment occurring at Victorian Square, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency budgeted $750,000.00 in Redevelopment Area 1 funds to make improvements to the parking garage (APN 032-341-33) adjacent to the movie theater.  This parking structure, which provides the majority of the public parking for Victorian Square, was built in 1996 and is in need of renovations.  One of the items in need of replacement is the security camera system. 

On April 9, 2018 on agenda item 8.3, PowerComm Solutions, Inc. was awarded a security camera system replacement contract in the amount of $70,631.64.  Please refer to the attached approved City Council Meeting Minutes for April 9, 2018 for further detail on the actions taken by the City Council.  Also attached are the draft meeting minutes for the May 29, 2018 Redevelopment Agency Meeting.  A copy of the contract is attached to the agenda item.

The contract for the specified work has been authorized by the City Council.  Staff is asking the Redevelopment Agency to ratify the contract because funding for the project is being provided by Redevelopment Area 1.  A total of $750,000.00 in Redevelopment Area 1 funding (Fund 3401) was budgeted for Victorian Square garage improvements in the Capital Improvements Plan for 2017/18 – 2021/22.

The City Attorney findings are fully outlined below:

This office has been requested to expedite a legal opinion concerning the installation of security cameras in the City’s parking garage and whether the anticipated, part-time monitoring of the real time feed (as compared to full-time monitoring) of those cameras will create legal liability against the City of Sparks.

In reviewing the reported case law in America, I could only find a single case where the issue of a municipality failing to monitor security cameras actually made it to trial.

In KELLEHER v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, WL 10961774, (2011) (Fla.Cir.Ct.), the Plaintiff alleged that, “The City of Gainesville did not and still does not employ any security personnel at the downtown parking garage in spite of the hundreds of criminal acts that preceded the murder of Andrew Arosemena. Security cameras were in place but The City of Gainesville did not employ anyone to monitor the real time feed.” Plaintiff’s continued blaming the City of Gainesville for the murder of her son by further alleging, ”The City of Gainesville does not train its garage attendants in matters related to security of any kind nor require its attendants to monitor the parking garage on foot or otherwise. The City of Gainesville failed to engage these measures which were necessary and reasonable to provide a safe environment free from foreseeable criminal activity of people lawfully on the premises, such as Andrew Arosemena.”

The Kelleher Plaintiff produced an expert witness, Howard B. Wood-an expert in security processes and procedures- who, when referring to the issue of security cameras, opined that, “They provided security cameras that has some deterrent value but do not prevent crime. Cameras are helpful in arresting suspects after the incidents occur”

The jury found in favor of the City of Gainesville and determined that there was no negligence on Gainesville’s part. Essentially, the City of Gainesville argued that regardless of whether the security cameras were monitored, the murder would have occurred anyway- that there was no way monitored security cameras can stop crime, rather at best, security cameras might deter crime.

The argument proffered by the City of Gainesville had previously found favor in Louisiana in the case of, Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 816 So. 2d 270, 282 (La. 2002) where the court noted, “Moreover, and most significantly, ample record testimony supports the conclusion that surveillance cameras have very little deterrent effect on violent crime… Defense expert, Dr. Schreiber, explained that the deterrent effect of surveillance cameras on armed robberies is actually very small. Out of 9,512 reported bank robberies in 1992, there were security cameras in place in 9,124 of them.”

Courts generally view the importance of security cameras as a “witness” providing evidentiary value and not a deterrent or preventive device against crime, “Security camera footage are admitted as substantive evidence as “silent witness[es]” as to what activity is being depicted.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E. 3d 1274, 1282 (Ind. 2014).

The only “down side” to installing security cameras is that once they are installed, the City of Sparks will arguably have an obligation to maintain the cameras in an operable manner. In, City of Dallas v. Heard, 252 S.W.3d 98, 108 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008), the court held that a claim that the city failed to maintain security cameras was sufficient to allege a premises defect claim. While this case has found disfavor in other jurisdictions, whether a Nevada Court would adopt similar reasoning cannot be predicted at this time.

Finally, and perhaps as a collateral matter, video footage captured by the security cameras could become retrievable by the general public under Nevada’s Public Records Law.

Conclusion

It is therefore the opinion of this office that the installation and proper maintenance of security cameras in a city parking garage with little to no part-time monitoring of video feeds will not create undue legal liability against the City of Sparks.

Thank you for your interest in this matter and should you require additional clarification or advice, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Chet Adams

Sparks City Attorney

1. The Redevelopment Agency could ratify the contract as outlined by Staff.
2. The Redevelopment Agency could deny the ratification and provide further direction to the Chief Administrative Officer.

I move to ratify the contract approved by the Sparks City Council utilizing Redevelopment Area 1 funds for renovation of the City parking garage (APN 032-341-33) adjacent to the Victorian Square movie theater in a total amount not to exceed $70,631.64