No WhiteWash!

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

One thing that does bother me with photo enforcement is if someone borrowed my car tag and put it on another car which was just like mine.  Or take a picture of my car tag,  print a good quality digital reproduction and put it on a similar vehicle.  I can’t claim my car was reported stolen since they just borrowed my tag and returned it and I was not aware of it .  I can’t claim someone else was driving and it looks like I have no recourse.  I can just see the discussion now.  Is this your tag number?  Yes!  Do you drive a green 1951 Ford?  Yes!  Did anyone else drive your car on that day?  No, it was parked in my driveway all night!   Was your car stolen and did you file a police report?   No, when I went to sleep, it was in my driveway and it was there the next morning when I went to work!   In this case it you decide to take it to court and lose, then you get the points and higher insurance rates.

As the Kingsport BMA debates the future of red-light revenue cameras, I wonder how they would feel if the above happen to them.

See over 90 posts from this blog concerning Red-Light Cameras

Below is from The Show blog.  Be sure to tune in to every Monday and Thursday from 6-8pm for the radio talk show.  See The Show blog for more details.

Are we going to have anyone showing up? We need bodies there arguing our case against these things.  Now is the time to do it.

KINGSPORT — The Kingsport Board of Mayor and Aldermen will again discuss the controversial red light camera system during a work session Monday afternoon, with some city leaders saying they hope to put the issue to rest once and for all.

Kingsport has no plans to do away with the cameras, especially since the city went out to bid on the system — Redflex may get its contract renewed, or a new company could come in

Much of the recent discussion has not dealt with whether or not Kingsport should keep the cameras — city leaders agree on Kingsport keeping them — rather the talk has been about the $100 fine and whether Kingsport could lower the amount for court costs.

City Attorney Mike Billingsley has told the BMA reducing the court costs for just the red light camera fines would be unconstitutional. In addition, Kingsport is under contract with Redflex through the end of the year, which includes where the fine money goes.

“I don’t know how much leeway we have to change (the fine),” Mallicote said. “My preference would be to go to a somewhat reduced fine, but I can’t see any way of doing that, if we assess court costs. I don’t see any way to get there.”

Full story

From a article from Nov 7th shows Knoxville does not impose a court cost. So my question how can this non-uniformity in law and fines be constitutional?

“To be honest, once we heard (City Attorney Mike) Billingsley’s opinion on the applicability of court costs in all cases, I think that took the issue off the table for me,” Mallicote said, referring to Knoxville’s lower ticket price. “The reason Knoxville’s is less is they don’t assess court costs. Mike said he thinks that’s unconstitutional, so that’s the end of the story.”

Story

A reader of this blog has submitted information below on the series of events that certain Kingsport city officials took to help out their friends.  In my view, the City of Kingsport should keep it’s nose out of other organizations business.  See previous post on Kingsport’s downtown turf battle.  Mayor Phillips photo is on the above left and Vice Mayor Mallicote is on the above right.

Summary: The recent numerous public accounts of continuing disputes in downtown Kingsport are unfortunately the result of extraordinary biased “leadership” by the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Kingsport, that have emboldened and enabled bully tactics by the very small group of businesses that call themselves the downtown business alliance (dba).

The dba has been grossly misrepresented publicly as having over seventy members; while in reality it is led by two important downtown businesses (Adaptcore and Urban Synergy). The dba only has a handful of strong supporters, none paying membership dues while the Downtown Kingsport Association (DKA) has 160 dues paying members and represents a broad range of downtown interests and has been doing so successfully for 70 years. The leaders of the dba have been key campaign supporters of city leadership preferred political candidates while the DKA board has been perceived as political opponents of city “leadership” The DKA has taken extraordinary measures to accommodate the legitimate interests of the dba; the DKA has met 100% of its contract deliverables to the City of Kingsport, which has not been disputed; yet demands for extraordinarily detailed and unfortunately increasingly stringent organizational changes have been placed upon the DKA by the Mayor and Vice-Mayor accompanied by unwarranted public attacks and bias by them.

The dba has failed to meet its few minor commitments to the DKA, but the city “leadership” has never requested the dba to comply. These actions by city “leadership” have harmed downtown Kingsport and are apparently driven by personal vendettas and agendas by them and not by any desire to improve Kingsport This is the second effort by city leadership to destroy the DKA as the Mayor attempted to force a “merger” with the Chamber of Commerce last year that made no sense.

• In 2008 the Mayor demanded that the DKA enter into “merger” discussions with the Kingsport Chamber of Commerce or receive no funding with no explanation of why this was appropriate This was a bad idea by the Mayor, and after brief discussions between the Chamber and the DKA both parties agreed If the Mayor had been successful, it would have meant the end of the DKA.
• The DKA negotiated a detailed list of 8 pages of deliverables with the city for the fiscal year ending June 30; and every single deliverable was met successfully. which has not been disputed.
• Late 2008 an informal alliance of a few downtown businesses (dba) approached the city regarding what that they perceived as problems within the DKA. The Mayor apparently saw this as second opportunity to destroy the DKA. Despite the dba refusing to be members of the DKA and work from within for improvements, the city “leadership” encouraged and emboldened the dba to compete with the DKA, to demand board seats and to further demand a long list of detailed organizational changes still without even joining the organization. The city “leadership” should have advised the “dba” to join the DKA and work from within instead of encouraging the bullying tactics employed by the dba.  If city “leadership” had acted appropriately at this point all the competition and disputes between downtown organizations would have been avoided.
• In February at a joint meeting attended by the Mayor, the dba and the DKA, the Mayor unfortunately showed his bias by opening the meeting prior to any discussions of the parties by advising the DKA to provide 6 board seats to the dba. He did not advise the dba to join nor make any suggestions to them on how to better work together.
• Also in February the DKA submitted a funding request with a detailed set of deliverables and at a proposed funding level to address increased downtown marketing as targeted by the dba. The city “leadership” provided no feedback on the proposal and the proposal was not even provided to the rest of the BMA for consideration. No opportunity was provided for the DKA to discuss this proposal with the BMA.
• Instead the city “leadership” scheduled a BMA work session in May regarding funding for downtown activities; they provided substantial advance notice to the dba who were given an opportunity to make a formal presentation while the DKA was given only one hours notice. This was a blatantly unfair by the city “leadership” The BMA tentatively split funding, which led to further competition between the groups and ultimately to formal mediation. This was a serious mistake as the dba was not a qualified non-profit organization legally able to accept city funding. In fact the dba were not even a legal entity, but only an informal alliance, which is still true today.
• City “leadership” is well aware that the dba has been grossly exaggerated in public descriptions of its size. In fact it is led by AdaptCore (owners of Bonefire Smokehouse, The Bus Pit, Kingsport Grocery and the apparent failed attempt to renovate the State theater) and Urban Synergy (developers of numerous lofts and business building renovations downtown) and a very small group of other moderate supporters. While these two companies are important to downtown, they do not represent broad interests downtown such as manufacturing, professional services, medical, banking, churches, etc. as the DKA does.
• Despite its funding cut, the DKA led an effort to have Kingsport’s greatest July 4th concert and fireworks display ever.
• At the first mediation meeting in July the Mayor and Vice Mayor were not neutral parties, they completely advocated on behalf of the dba; and made extraordinarily disparaging remarks about specific DKA board members. The dba had three pages of specific organizational demands and the DKA placed no demands upon the dba. The mediator stated that certain key corporate sponsorships were threatened unless the DKA met the demands of the dba and city “leadership” This meeting with two BMA members attending may have been a violation of State sunshine laws, which should be investigated.
• On September 28 at a BMA work session the Vice Mayor presented a completely one sided proposal to the BMA and falsely portrayed it as a “middle of the road” proposal. In fact if it had been accepted that evening by the BMA (which it was not), the DKA would have been required to meet 100% of every onerous demand by the dba, including a ridiculous demand for twelve Board seats or the DKA would receive no funding; and the dba would not have been required to do anything!
• At a DKA press conference on Oct 2, an extraordinary positive announcement was explained about downtown Kingsport. A joint arrangement had been reached between DKA and the Restoration Church located in the previous Strand Theater to lead to immediate and regular stage performances focused on family based dramas in this currently fully functioning state of the art performing arts facility. Instead of city “leadership” attending the press conference to praise these efforts, the Vice-Mayor attended, had no positive statements to make, and focused all his statements on creating false charges about timing concerns related to these actions. In the Kingsport paper the next day a great positive story for downtown Kingsport should have been the focus, but instead because of the Vice-Mayor’s almost unbelievable anti Kingsport actions another negative story was the focus.
• Alderman Munsey agreed to work over next two weeks (from Sept 28) to attempt resolution. During that period much real progress was made and only four detailed issues remained to be resolved by the next BMA work session on Oct 5, at which the BMA had targeted for final resolution. Note that while the DKA continued to make concessions in good faith the dba reduced its commitment to bring in new members to 15-20 from the 50-70 they first made in July and from the 30-40 new members promised just two weeks earlier.
• Well in advance of the Oct 5 BMA work session, the DKA prepared and submitted to the city manager’s office an 11-page presentation to be reviewed with the BMA that clearly laid out the case for the value of DKA and its rationale for funding. Unfortunately the Mayor advised the DKA ten minutes before the meeting that the DKA would be given no opportunity during the alderman discussion of potential DKA funding to discuss or review the presentation. Again this was grossly unfair.
• At the same meeting Larry Munsey covered the progress he made as described in his Oct 2 report and the four remaining issues were identified (number of board seats, term limits, election procedures this year and nominating committee). One alderman suggested the dba and the DKA representatives go outside the room and see if agreement between the parties could be reached. After a brief meeting, full agreement was reached, and it was explained orally to the BMA. The DKA, the dba and the DKA thought all of the BMA understood final agreement was reached that evening between the dba and the DKA, and that funding would be released right away to the DKA so that a completely unified downtown would be put into place immediately.
• Unfortunately the next evening the Vice Mayor continued his vendetta and convinced the BMA to impose additional requirements upon the DKA before funding would be released that had not been agreed to the previous night. The vice-mayor publicly criticized the DKA and funding was to be further withheld until the city attorney certified DKA had met its obligations. This was a serious mistake, and the BMA was advised of such as city “leadership” had previously demonstrated on numerous occasions they could not be trusted as described herein.
• Nevertheless the DKA continued to work in good faith to meet its commitments. Its Board met and made all the bylaw changes that it had agreed to. It added two representatives to the dba to the Board nominating committee and worked in good faith to pick six Board candidates from their list of 12 suggested (as was agreed to). The dba had agreed at the last BMA work session to have all of its board candidates join the DKA, generally for small business at the relatively small cost of $150, but unfortunately the dba did not comply.
• On Oct 28 a meeting of DKA, dba and city representatives was held. The dba admitted they still had not met their requirement for any of their Board nominees to join, but the dba now pushed ahead attempting to negotiate additional concessions from the DKA. On one issue the city attorney clarified that what the DKA had changed in its bylaws was consistent with the agreement previously reached and the dba position was wrong. On another issue the dba was again wrong as they were citing a preliminary report from Alderman Munsey not the final report. The DKA clarified such that evening to all parties. Despite the fact the dba had not met its meager commitments and the DKA had met 100% of its very demanding commitments, the Vice Mayor requested nothing from the dba, but insisted that the DKA make concessions beyond the agreement previously reached. The dba again agreed they would bring in the promised membership checks by the end of the day.
• By an Oct 29 called BMA work session, the dba still had not brought in any memberships as repeatedly promised and the DKA had met all its requirements that it agreed to on Oct 5. In fact the dba now was demanding several additional new concessions mostly of a technical nature. Instead of allowing the city attorney to discuss how the DKA had complied with its requirements and allow his certification for funding as the BMA had previously voted, the Vice Mayor convinced the BMA to support (subject to a final vote on Nov 3) funding for downtown through the KCVB, which already receives nearly a million dollars in city funding. There is no logical reason to take away DKA funding for additional funding to KCVB.
• At the November 3 BMA meeting the BMA voted by 5-2 to fund the KCVB. The two aldermen that voted on principle were Ken Marsh and Larry Munsey.
• The DKA has fully met all its commitments. The dba has not. The city “leadership” is continuing to deny funding to the DKA despite this, and has demonstrated that the Mayor and Vice-Mayor never intended to negotiate in good faith.
• It is now clear to the DKA that the Kingsport Mayor and Vice-Mayor are biased regarding the DKA.

Comments are welcome on this blog.

Last night the Kingsport, Tennessee Board of Mayor and Alderman voted to borrow $41.1 million for various projects.  According to the Kingsport Times-News quote below, the total debt has doubled in the last five years.  I might add that this has occurred during Mayor Dennis Phillips terms as mayor and John Campbell as city manager.

With this bond issuance, Kingsport’s total debt has doubled in the past five years, from $110 million in fiscal year 2006 to $218 million in fiscal year 2010, according to city records. Kingsport’s general fund debt will increase from the current amount of $92.6 million to $103.4 million for fiscal year 2010, while total city debt will go from $173.5 million to slightly more than $218 million.

Read more via Kingsport BMA approves $41.1 M in bonds – Kingsport Times-News Online.

Things must really be in bad shape for the city because they are borrowing $200k to replace a roof on the Renaissance Center and financing it for 20 years.  Borrowing money to replace a roof should be a maintenance item that is planned for and funded from within a yearly budget.

It would not surprise me that Kingsport will be the subject of many discussions by other cities on Kingsport’s management practices or lack thereof. 

Mayor Phillips, when can we expect the property tax increase?

Below is the spending that was approved

Below is data that was obtained form the website NeighborhoodScout which gives some interesting data concerning the high crime rate in Kingsport, Tennessee.  Kingsport is ranked as having a high crime rank by NeighborhoodScout and states that  Kingsport’s crime rate is higher than the average for the State of Tennessee and  United States.

Are our city officials more concerned about putting in a new swimming pool, expanding the convention center, building more hotels, annexing more property, getting more restaurants, etc. than reducing the high crime rate in Kingsport?

Kingsport, TN Elected Officials – Board of Mayor and Alderman

Mayor Dennis Phillips	Vice Mayor Ben Mallicote	Alderman Larry Munsey	Alderman Jantry Shupe	Alderman C. Ken Marsh, Jr.	Alderman Tom Parham	Alderwoman Valerie Joh

NeighborhoodScout

With a crime rate of 89 per one thousand residents, Kingsport has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes – from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One’s chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 11. Within Tennessee, more than 90% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Kingsport.

Separately, it is always interesting and important to compare a city’s crime rate with those of similarly sized communities – a fair comparison as larger cities tend to have more crime. NeighborhoodScout has done just that. With a population of 44,560, Kingsport has a combined rate of violent and property crime that is very high compared to other places of similar population size. Regardless of whether Kingsport does well or poorly compared to all other cities and towns in the US of all sizes, compared to places with a similar population, it fares badly. Few other communities of this size have a crime rate as high as Kingsport.

The crime data that NeighborhoodScout used for this analysis are the seven offenses from the uniform crime reports, collected by the FBI from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies, and include both violent and property crimes, combined.

Now let us turn to take a look at how Kingsport does for violent crimes specifically, and then how it does for property crimes. This is important because the overall crime rate can be further illuminated by understanding if violent crime or property crimes (or both) are the major contributors to the general rate of crime in Kingsport.

For Kingsport, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScout’s analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Kingsport is one in 107.

In addition, NeighborhoodScout found that a lot of the crime that takes place in Kingsport is property crime. Property crimes that are tracked for this analysis are burglary, larceny over fifty dollars, motor vehicle theft, and arson. In Kingsport, your chance of becoming a victim of a property crime is one in 13, which is a rate of 80 per one thousand population.

Click here to see the data below as well as a map showing where the safest places are in Kingsport.  At the top of the page you can get data for a different city.

I have done many posts concerning the median age and population in Sullivan County, Tennessee and  Sullivan County has one of the oldest populations in the state (click here to view the data).

The data below is from the state and I hope will help illustrate exactly what will happen if Sullivan County continues as it has in the past.

Below in the graph is a breakdown on the population for the different age groups in Sullivan County for the census year 2000 and projections for year 2025.  Sullivan County population in year 2000 was 153,048 and is projected to be 161,262 in year 2025.

Note that in the graph below that the 2025 population for all age groups are less for age groups that are under the 55 to 59 age group.  The year 2025 graph shows that the population numbers shows the population growing for for ages group 55 and up.  The largest single age group with the largest population is the age group 75 and up and the larger part of them are females.

Is Sullivan County equipped to handle the aging population?  There should great demand for those businesses offering services to the elderly.  But, if you are a pediatric physician, you might want to start your practice elsewhere because of the low birth rate in Sullivan County.

The table below gives the actual population numbers for the different age groups.  I have added the year 2010 which is not plotted in the above graph so you can see what is projected for 2010.  The data from the state is given as number of males and females for each age group and I have added the male and female population numbers together in the table below and the graph.

Population Projections for Sullivan County, TN

You can view the data for other Tennessee Counties which includes projections for every five years up to year 2025.  Click on the link below to go to the Tennessee webpage

Demographic Information on Age-Gender Composition

In addition to the population projections for each Tennessee city and county contained in the report above, you may access more detailed cohort-component data for a city or county below. (Please note that updated demographic projections will be forthcoming.)

Please either click a county on the Tennessee state map or click a county name in the alphabetical list below the map to access the cohort-component data. Note the Word of Caution following table listed below.

Click here to view state data for Tennessee Counties

---

I am one of the older population and am concerned about the future of Sullivan County.   No, you can’t move us out of the county, but you should be concerned about the future of the county when we have left this world.  There must be something in place to keep young people in Sullivan County.  A good start would be get companies that have good paying jobs to locate here.   If you too are concerned, talk to your elected officials.  You can email them at the following links.

Comments are welcome.

The data below shows that Johnson City has increased its retail sales share of the total retail sales in the Tri-Cities area.  The new retail establishments added in Kingsport in the last few years has not stopped its loss of market share.

Source:  Dr. F. Steb Hipple – ETSU

Below is a comment submitted by former Kingsport Alderman Pat Shull.  He raises some good points and I agree with his concerns about the two year contract at $35,000 per year and the pick-up truck gift.

I would also like to add that Mayor Phillips appointed his friends, Pal Barger , Dr, Bill Locke, and former Alderman Mike O’Neil to be on an oversight board for the Kingsport Convention and Visitors Bureau.  I think I am seeing a pattern of cronyism here.

The act of the BMA approving a $35,000 consulting contract for Dr. Bill Locke is clearly a conflict of interest.  During the deliberations regarding the City building the KCHE and RCHP it was absolutely crucial that the BMA receive assurance from the Dr. Locke, as Northeast State President, that NE State would fund the operating costs of these two centers IF the city would pay for construction of the buildings.  Also, there was no discussion for any need for a consultant to perform the services described in the Times-News article.  In my opinion, the city staff and elected officials are capable of performing the tasks cited.  Hiring Dr. Locke to fix problems that he should have anticipated and briefed the BMA about during the higher education discussions is simply absurd.

Several weeks ago Dr. Locke received a gift of a brand new pickup truck.  This donation effort was organized by the Mayor, Dennis Phillips.  The gift coupled with the consulting contract have the strong appearance of a political pay-off to Dr Locke for his cooperation during the BMA deliberations about higher education support.  Further, it is well known that Dr. Locke is good friends with the Mayor AND the publisher of the Times-News newspaper. Again, hiring Dr. Locke for various services appears to be the granting of a favor to a friend rather than a responsible, necessary action by the city.  Further, why would the current President of NE State (charged with administering the two centers) want her predecessor involved in her business?  This is a bad management precedent.

I am familiar with Federal regulations regarding "conflicts of interest".  Simply put, the above described acts would never be permitted at Federal level, and it is a disgrace that our BMA is so ethically blind that they would approve it at municipal level.  

Patrick W. Shull, COL USA (Ret). 

The City of Kingsport, Tennessee is applying for a grant to plant trees that will have matching funds that come from the regional sales tax fund and the visitor enhancement program.  The Meadowview Convention Center was paid off in 2007 and the city refuses to rescind the 1/4 percent sales tax, but wants to use excess regional sales tax money to plant trees.

 Mallicote stated in a radio interview that if the regional sale tax goes into the general fund, then it should be taken to the taxpayer to decide what to do with the regional sales tax.  When can the voters expect the referendum Mr. Mallicote? 

It would not surprise me to see the trees planted in the Meadowview area to make it more attractive.

Voted on and passed at the August 4, 2009 BMA meeting

Consideration of a Resolution to Authorize the Mayor to Sign alt Documents Necessary to Apply and |Receive a Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program – Community Tree Planting Project Grant

Executive Summary:
The TAEP (Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program) grant funds for community tree planting were provided by the 2008 State Legislature to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. The goal of TAEP community tree planting grants is to increase the tree resource base in cities and towns across the State of Tennessee. It is NOT to provide beautification. Trees are work horses for our communities, providing energy savings through shading, storm water mitigation through rain interception, and air quality improvement through filtration and absorption. Beautification should not be used as an objective for a TAEP tree planting project.

The city is eligible to apply for up to $20,000 with a dollar for dollar cash match required. This match will be provided from money in the budget for trees from the regional sales tax and visitor enhancement program.

The school system is a partner in the grant and will be implementing a project through the agricultural class at Dobyns-Bennett.

April 24, 2009 post

Listen to the April 23 WJCW radio interview with Ben Mallicote who is seeking re-election as Alderman on the Kingsport Board of Mayor and Alderman

Click here for interview

In the radio interview, he is asked about the regional sales tax and he stated that there is still debt that needs to be paid off at Meadowview.  The Convention Center was paid off in 2007 and the debt that Ben Mallicote mentioned must be for the debt for the Cattails Golf Course.  When the voters voted for the regional sales tax to be used for the convention center, I am sure that the golf course had not been dreamed about.

Since the Convention Center had been paid off, Alderman Marsh and Shull voted to return the regional sales tax to the citizens by the way of a property tax deduction.

Mallicote also stated that if the regional sale tax goes into the general fund, then it should be taken to the taxpayer to decide what to do with the regional sales tax.

Mr. Mallicote should check the current budget he voted for, because part of the regional sales tax is going to the general fund.  When can the voter expect the referendum Mr. Mallicote?

1/4 percent Regional Sales Tax Fund Revenue
$2,816,600

Transfer to Cattails
$ 783,100

Transfer to MeadowView CC
$1,233,500

Transfer to General Fund
$ 800,000