No WhiteWash!

“The Show” blog gives below some important information on the upcoming vote on revenue cameras used by cities in Tennessee.

The vote is set to take place after the Transportation committee (they start at 3:30pm Nashville time).

HB 3024

Here are the subcommittee members.

Committee Officers

* Vince Dean, Chair
Phone (615) 741-1934
Fax (615) 253-0271
rep.vince.dean@capitol.tn.gov

* Tony Shipley, Vice-Chair
Phone: (615) 741-2886
rep.tony.shipley@capitol.tn.gov
Facebook page

Members

Ty Cobb

Phone: (615) 741-3005
rep.ty.cobb@capitol.tn.gov
Facebook page

* Chad Faulkner

Phone: (615) 741-3335
rep.chad.faulkner@capitol.tn.gov
Facebook page

* Pat Marsh

Phone (615) 741-6824
Fax (615) 253-0344
rep.pat.marsh@capitol.tn.go

* Ben West

Phone (615) 741-6959
Fax (615) 253-0331
rep.ben.west@capitol.tn.gov

---

Here is the bill

*HB 3024 by *Harmon, McCord, Tidwell, West. (SB 2918 by *Burchett.)

Traffic Safety – As introduced, directs the comptroller to study traffic surveillance cameras, places a two-year moratorium on new cameras, and revises fines from traffic violations captured by such cameras. – Amends TCA Title 55, Chapter 8, Part 1.

Fiscal Summary

Not Available

Bill Summary

Present law requires that any state agency or political subdivision of the state that installs, owns, operates or maintains a traffic-control signal light located in an intersection that employs a surveillance camera for the enforcement or monitoring of traffic violations must ensure that:

(1) The surveillance camera does not identify as a violation of the “stop on red” requirement of the rules of the road any vehicle that legally entered the intersection during the green or yellow intervals; and
(2) Appropriate signage is located not less than 500 feet but not more than 1,000 feet in advance of the intersection informing drivers as to the presence of surveillance cameras at the approaching intersection.

A traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from a surveillance camera that has been installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations is considered a nonmoving traffic violation. If the state agency or political division of the state violates (1), as described above, then any traffic citation based solely on evidence generated by the surveillance camera is deemed to be invalid.

Present law prohibits the placement of any surveillance cameras on federal interstate highways, except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when workers are present, surveillance cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that the cameras must be operated only by a state entity.

This bill requires the comptroller to conduct a comprehensive study of the use of traffic surveillance cameras by government agencies in Tennessee and to provide a copy of such study to the transportation committee of each chamber by January 15, 2011.

Beginning January 1, 2011, this bill prohibits any local government from placing or operating a surveillance camera used to enforce traffic safety on any highway receiving state financial aid unless:

(1) The local governing body exhausts all reasonable engineering solutions pursuant to department of transportation standards to enhance traffic safety; and
(2) Any contract for the operation of such surveillance camera by a private vendor provides only for payment for services rendered, and no payment is based on a percentage of traffic citations generated by such surveillance camera.

This bill prohibits any local or county government from entering or renewing any contract with a private vendor for the operation of any surveillance camera used to enforce traffic safety until July 1, 2012, except that such prohibition will not apply to the portion of the roadway between blocks 2900 through 3200 of Hixson Pike in Hamilton County. Any contract entered into or renewed after July 1, 2012, must comply with the following:

(1) Rules promulgated by the department of transportation that prescribe traffic and engineering studies be conducted before the installation of a traffic violation surveillance camera;
(2) Rules promulgated by the department of safety that prescribe traffic safety considerations be addressed before the installation of a traffic violation surveillance camera; and
(3) Guidelines established by the comptroller for local government contracts with private vendors for installation and use of traffic surveillance traffic cameras.

This bill requires that the departments of transportation and safety consult with the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police and the Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association before filing rules pursuant to this bill with the secretary of state. This bill also requires that any local governmental entity seeking to install or operate traffic surveillance traffic cameras must, by majority vote, request that the comptroller verify that such local governmental entity has met all the requirements of the rules promulgated by the departments prior to the installation or operation of traffic surveillance cameras. A local governmental entity must vote to approve the installation or operation of traffic surveillance cameras after receipt of notice by the comptroller of compliance with the rules. Any rules promulgated pursuant to this bill must be presented to the transportation committees of each chamber for review and comment before being considered by the government operations committees of each chamber.

This bill requires that each local governing body that contracts for placement or operation a traffic surveillance camera on any highway receiving state financial aid on or after July 1, 2012, must submit the contract to the comptroller. This bill authorizes the comptroller to conduct compliance audits of any local governing body that has placed or is operating a traffic surveillance camera.

This bill sets the penalty for a person charged by a traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from a surveillance camera as follows:

(1) For a first offense by a fine of $10.00 only;
(2) For a second offense by a fine of $25.00 only; and
(3) For a third or subsequent offense by a fine of $50.00 only.

A person will not be considered a multiple offender under this bill if three years have passed since the prior violation. This bill also limits the court costs in any such case to $10.00 and prohibits the assessment of litigation taxes against any person who pays the ticket on time.

This bill adds to present law by requiring that the law enforcement employee who reviews video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and makes a determination as to whether a violation has occurred must be certified by the peace officer standards and training commission.

Below are sources for information on Tennessee enforcement revenue cameras.

Kill Tennessee Traffic Cameras

BanRedCams.com

The Show Blog

Rates Increase in 91 Counties, Decrease in 1, Remain the Same in Three

NASHVILLE – Tennessee’s seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for December was 10.9 percent, up 0.7 percentage point from the revised November rate of 10.2 percent. The United States’ unemployment rate for the month of December was unchanged at 10.0 percent.

County non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for December 2009, released today, show that the rate increased in 91 counties, decreased in one, and remained the same in three counties.

Lincoln County registered the state’s lowest county unemployment rate at 7.1 percent, up 0.4 from its November rate. Lauderdale and Marshall counties had the state’s highest unemployment rate at 18.9 percent. Lauderdale was up 0.4 from the November rate, and Marshall County increased from 16.8 percent in November.

Knox County had the state’s lowest major metropolitan rate of 8.1 percent, up 0.4 percentage point from the November rate. Hamilton County was at 8.9 percent, up 0.5 percentage point from the November rate. Davidson County was 9.2 percent, up 0.4 from the previous month, and Shelby County was 10.3 percent, up 0.3 from the November rate.

Data is from the following links –  Dec 2008, Jan 2009, Feb 2009, Mar 2009, April 2009, May, 2009, June 2009, July 2008, August 2009, Sept 2009, Oct 2008, Nov 2009, Dec 2009

Seasonally Adjusted Rate Up 0.7 Percentage Point from November

NASHVILLE – Tennessee Commissioner of Labor & Workforce Development James Neeley announced today Tennessee’s unemployment rate for December was 10.9 percent, up 0.7 percentage point from the November rate of 10.2 percent.

“This month we’ve seen a cumulative effect of statistical information which resulted in our high rate of unemployment,” reported Labor Commissioner James Neeley. “These figures are consistent with a weak holiday period that outweighed seasonal adjustments to the unemployment rate this time of year.”

The December rate a year ago was 7.6 percent. The national unemployment rate for December 2009 was 10.0 percent, equal to the November rate of 10.0 percent.

Major Changes in Estimated Nonagricultural Employment
November 2009 to December 2009

According to the Business Survey, 1,700 job gains occurred in retail trade; 1,200 in health care and social assistance; and 1,000 in professional, scientific and technical services. Major employment decreases occurred in manufacturing, down by 4,300; mining and construction declined by 3,900; and administrative, support and waste services declined by 2,900 jobs.

Major Changes in Estimated Nonagricultural Employment
December 2008 to December 2009

Year-over-year increases occurred in health care and social assistance, up by 8,700; federal government increased 1,500; and local government educational services gained 1,400. Manufacturing decreased by 27,600 jobs; trade, transportation and utilities lost 26,800; and mining and construction declined by 24,700.

NASHVILLE – The state’s fiscal year continues its trend of negative tax revenue growth, with tax collections falling below budgeted estimates again in December. Finance and Administration Commissioner Dave Goetz today announced that state revenue collections for December – reflecting November retail sales activity – were $766.7 million, which is $54.2 million less than the state budgeted.

“December tax collections represent the 19th consecutive month of negative sales tax growth,” Goetz said. “At the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, we’ll have to adjust for any under collection in the current fiscal year, and make sure our budget for fiscal year 2010-2011 reflects the revenue base available moving forward.”

On an accrual basis, December is the fifth month in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

The general fund was under collected by $50.8 million and the four other funds were under collected by $3.4 million.

Sales tax collections were $16.6 million less than the estimate for December.  The December growth rate was negative 2.88%. For five months revenues are under collected by $138.6 million, and the growth rate is negative 6.65%.

Franchise and excise taxes combined were $29.5 million below the budgeted estimate of $143.8 million. For five months revenues are under collected by $5.4 million.

Gasoline and motor fuel collections for December decreased by 2.70% and they were $4.3 million below the budgeted estimate of $66.7 million.  For five months revenues are under collected by $9.9 million.

Tobacco tax collections were $5.6 million below the budgeted estimate of $25.7 million, and for five months they are $3.8 million above the budgeted estimate.

Inheritance and estate taxes were over collected by $2.6 million for the month.

All other taxes were under collected by a net of $800,000.

Year-to-date collections for five months were $169 million less than the budgeted estimate. The general fund was under collected by $147.1 million and the four other funds were under collected by $21.9 million.

The budgeted revenue estimates for 2009-2010 are based on the State Funding Board’s consensus recommendation adopted by the second session of the 106th General Assembly in May of 2009. and are available on the state’s Web site at http//www.tn.gov/finance/bud/budget.html.

I have previously written concerning the proposal that the City of Kingsport buy the old State Theater  See post Kingsport Developer gets in over his head, thinks old theater may be haunted and wants city to bail him out.

Now the completed study by the Cinema Preservation Group is out and can be read in its entirety in the link below.  Read and form your own conclusions.

Kingsport Economic Development Board recently voted to spend nearly $10,000 to fund a study to determine the economic impact of a restored theater in downtown Kingsport. The Cinema Preservation Group is now conducting the work.

KEDB Chairman Bob Feathers said he contacted Beatty about the possibility of the city purchasing or investing in the theater after learning that Beatty was considering nonprofit status for the facility.

Feathers said he believes some type of investment can occur to complete the theater project — regardless of what the economic development study shows.

Read more via City may consider buying State Theater building – Kingsport Times-News Online.

In the recent Kingsport Times-News article below, Mayor Dennis Phillips denies that the city plans to buy the State Theatre outright.  I wonder what Mayor Phillips has in mind when he stated “without an enormous expense to the taxpayers”?

Mayor Dennis Phillips said he hopes the study will encourage some individual or organization to invest in the State Theater, complete the renovations, and begin operating it for the benefit of the downtown district.

“I think if we can accomplish this without an enormous expense to the taxpayers, it certainly would be a service that is sorely needed,” Phillips said.

Asked about the Strand Theater, another Broad Street historic facility that has recently been used as a venue for live music and old movies, Phillips said the Cinema Preservation Group study could also be used by the Strand owners if they would want to market the facility one day. The Strand Theatre is owned by Restoration Church.

“I don’t know if the Strand Theater is available today. The Strand Theatre is a church,” he said.

But if the Strand were put on the market, “this report would apply … then it becomes a matter of economics of which one could be done at the least cost,” Phillips said.

He denied that the city plans to buy the State Theatre outright.

via Study envisions new future for State Theatre – Kingsport Times-News Online.

The report from the Cinema Preservation Group states that there are major problems when a non-profit theater is aligned too closely with city hall.  Below are two paragraphs from the study.  I would encourage you to read the entire report.

Non-profit theatres aligned too closely with city hall often fall prey to two particular problems. The first occurs when the theatre building comes to be perceived as a public facility. Various public entities feel that they should be allowed to use the facility for significantly discounted rates, or even for free. Though currently not an issue in the case of the State, this type of agreement is often adopted in order to ensure initial approval for restoration by the council and guarantee the allocation of funds for building renovations and/or other expenses. Severely discounted rates take revenue away from the theatre and occupy blocks of time that could be filled by other groups who would pay to use the building. The second problem arises when city residents perceive the theatre to be a municipal building. When this happens, it becomes extremely difficult to raise money from the community. Fundraising efforts are either simply ignored or opposed outright, and individual donors become wary of contributing to an entity they feel could and should be largely financed by tax dollars.

…….Though ticket and concession sales are the primary sources of revenue for a theatre, there are other means of earning revenue that must be explored. The vast majority of live theatres in America today will never be self-supporting, they can simply never make enough money on ticket sales and concessions to cover expenses. Even in good economic times many theatres are fortunate to earn 50% of their revenue from events. Two strategies for overcoming this revenue shortfall are fundraising and rental.

Read more via The Cinema Preservation Group Study

The survey that was used in the study is questionable because the Cinema Preservation Group chose to use the blog that is maintained by Kingsport’s Assistant Manager, Jeff Flemming.  The readership of Jeff Flemming’s blog in my opinion would show a bias for the city of Kingsport and would not reflect the majority views of the Kingsport citizens.  See Time Sensitive: How do you feel about State Theatre?  I am sure that the response would have been different if this blog posted the survey.

It is interesting that the Cinema Preservation Group is from Asheville, NC.  Prior to coming to Kingsport, Doug Beatty lived in the Asheville area.

Also, it is interesting that  Richard Rose, artistic director at the Barter Theatre in Abingdon, sent a letter of support for the State Theatre restoration to Kingsport City Manager, John Campbell.  Rose said he reviewed the Cinema Preservation study.  It is also interesting that Doug Beatty lives in the Abingdon, Virginia area

See also DKA to partner with Restoration Church on Strand Theater project,

Drama unfolds at DKA press conference on old Strand Theater

Virginia Department of Transportation defends red light camera study from attack of financially interested opponents.

In 2007, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) performed one of the most comprehensive statewide surveys of the impact of red light cameras on safety (view report). It caused quite a stir upon its release. The study took advantage of seven years’ worth of data both before and after cameras were installed, examining a far more extensive dataset than most competing studies.

Despite the agency’s best effort to present automated enforcement in a positive light, the unavoidable results were that, on a statewide level, accidents and injuries increased where cameras were used. This outcome has proved to be an embarrassment for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) which has been the primary organization generating research claiming that red light cameras improve safety. IIHS noted that VDOT essentially bent over backwards to accommodate the industry, but because the ultimate results were unfavorable, the VDOT report should be discarded.

Read more via Virginia DOT Defends Red Light Camera Study.

It’s a slow day in a small town and
streets are deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody
is living on credit.
A rich tourist drives through town, stops at the
motel, and lays a $100
bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms
upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the owner
grabs the bill and runs
next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the
street to retire
his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off
to pay his bill to
his supplier, the Farmer’s Co-op.

The guy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the
$100 and runs to pay his
debt to the local prostitute, who has also been
facing hard times and has
had to offer her “services” on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off
her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100
back on the counter so
the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the
stairs, states that
the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100
bill and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned
anything. However, the
whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the
future with a lot more optimism.

And this, ladies
and gentlemen, is how the United States
Government is
conducting business today.

Voters in Baytown, Texas file petition calling for referendum on red light cameras.

Baytown, Texas will be the next city where voters decide the fate of red light cameras. A total of 1324 residents, more than double the number required, signed a petition proposing an ordinance that would outlaw photo enforcement in Baytown. Resident Byron Schirmbeck yesterday handed the city clerk a stack of signature sheets, but he expects officials to resist placing the ordinance on the ballot.

"Our fight to hold the city accountable and remove the cameras has just started," Schirmbeck said. "The city has given every indication they intend to invalidate our petition and ignore the will of the people. Even now the city is putting up more cameras even though they know we want a vote on them."

The clerk’s office must validate at least 620 petition signatures before the city council would be asked to place the ordinance before voters, but the city council may attempt to block the petition. Earlier this year, the city of Chillicothe, Ohio was so desperate to save its photo ticketing program that it asked the state supreme court to stop the vote on the referendum — a request that the high court swiftly denied. College Station, Texas likewise spent thousands in taxpayer dollars on a lobbying effort designed to allow ticketing to continue. After the election took place, College Station’s vendor, American Traffic Solutions, used a front group to file an injunction designed to have the public vote invalidated.

These efforts ultimately failed. As in every case where a referendum on photo ticketing has appeared on the ballot, the public demanded that the automated ticketing machines be removed. Schirmbeck believes Baytown residents will vote against the cameras because the city has been fundamentally dishonest about the program. The city has been caught not only manipulating data but also shortening yellow times at intersections.

At the intersection of Garth and Baker Roads, for example, accidents increased by eleven percent with no reduction in the number of injuries. The city had falsely claimed in reports to the state department of transportation that accidents dropped 63 percent at the same location. In July, Schirmbeck caught the city using an illegally short yellow time of 3.1 seconds at Garth and Baker. Once exposed, the city increased the yellow to 4.5 seconds. As revenue dropped, however, the city quietly shortened that yellow to just 4.0 seconds. It later attempted to justify the move by erecting a "40 MPH" speed limit sign, even though the opposite side of the same road is posted at 45 MPH.

After the clerk determines the validity of the petition, the city council will vote on the proposed ordinance at the next council meeting.

via Baytown, Texas Residents Demand Vote on Reed Light Cameras.

There is a petition that has been started by a local Kingsport citizen to protest the City of Kingsport spending $450,000 on ‘wayfinding’ signs.

Read the following article and the comments for more information on the out of control spending proposed by our elected leaders.  Kingsport to spend about $450,000 on ‘wayfinding’ signs

If the City of Kingsport has extra money to spend that comes from the hotel tax, then how about using it to pay for the money losing convention center and golf course at Meadowview.

Maybe it is the BMA that is lost and can’t find their way to make good sound decisions.  Maybe we should have a petition to recall the current BMA members?

Kingsport, TN’s Signs

---

View Current Signatures

---

To:  Kingsport TN Board of Mayor and Alderman

Kingsport has recently decided that we need more signs showing how to get to random places around Kingsport. I believe we need to work on fixing the roads that we travel on to get to these places. They are trying to spend $450,000 on these signs. The money is going to a Michigan based company, at that. If you have ever got a headache from the pot holes in Kingsport or waited in traffic downtown due to the lack of turn lanes, sign the dotted line and tell our BMA we don’t need their signs!

Sincerely,

 

The Undersigned

 

Click Here to Sign Petition

---

Comments are welcome