Archive

Archive for the ‘Pat Shull’ Category

Kingsport Alderman Candidate Mallicote states Cincinnati is not recruiting businesses

May 16th, 2009 No comments

Below is a video from the KNETIC debate, that shows two different perspectives on economic development between Pat Shull and Ben Mallicote, who are both running for re-election for the Kingsport Board of Mayor and Alderman.

Ben Mallicote stated in the KNETIC debate that Cincinnati, Ohio is not recruiting businesses and instead recruiting people.  Read the Cincinnati 2009-2013 Work Plan at the bottom of this post and decide yourself if the statement that Ben Mallicote made concerning Cincinnati is a true statement.  Also click on the links below and I think you will see that Cincinnati has a lot going on concerning economic development.

He appears to be anti-smokestack type businesses, but I should remind Ben Mallicote, that the patents that he talks about most likely came from those companies like Eastman that have smokestacks.


Cincinnati also states the following.

Each new company that locates here fortifies the entire region. Research shows that one new company bringing 50 new jobs will create 51 additional jobs in other industries, generating $4.1 million in wages and salaries for the total 101 jobs. This triggers an estimated 67 new housing units with $6.8 million in sales and, subsequently, $2.6 million spent on food, clothing, vehicle, entertainment and other goods purchased. One company. 50 new jobs. Significant regional impact for everyone.

2008 Annual Report

2008 Regional Business Growth Report

2008 Regional Business Retention Report

City of Cincinnati

Below is page 16 from the 2008 Annual Report

Cincinnati

East Tennessee City pours more money into losing investment

April 29th, 2009 No comments

I must admit that the decision of the Kingsport BMA to spend over $15 million for an expansion of the MeadowView Convention Center has really raised my blood pressure.

I have written many posts concerning this issue and feel that politics is playing a big part in the decision to expand the convention center.  Good common business sense seems to be absent for the five BMA members (Phillips, Mallicote, Joh, Shupe, Munsey) who voted to expand the convention center.  It appears that there is an incestuous relationship with special interest groups

Alderman Marsh implored the mayor to get public input before the vote, but the mayor railroaded the convention center expansion to a vote.  Alderman Marsh and Shull voted to give back to the city property owners the 1/4 percent regional sales tax that was used to pay off the current convention center, but the gang of five prevailed.

The taxpayers have invested $25.7 million in the current MeadowView Convention Center and Cattails golf course.  The convention center has never made money and the golf course barely breaks even.

The City of Kingsport is spending another $15 million to expand the convention center into an executive conference center.

One needs to ask, what is the real cost to the taxpayers for Kingsport’s part of MeadowView? The combined cost of the current convention center, golf course and the new expansion would be about $41 million.

To get the true cost, the interest expense for the bonds must be added to the cost.  In the table below you will see the actual cost after applying the different interest rates.  The bond life used is 20 years.

CostInterest ExpenseReal CostInterest Rate
41,000,00018,628,46459,628,4644.00%
41,000,00017,340,21058,340,2103.75%
41,000,00016,068,03657,068,0363.50%

I would like to ask, are there any citizens in Kingsport that would invest $57 – $59.6 million in a project that did not make money for them?

It is up to you as voters to decide your future.  Mallicote, Joh, and Phillips who are running for re-election voted to spend more money on the money-losing convention center.

Alderman Shull who is also running for re-election voted against the convention center expansion and instead voted to give the regional sales tax back to city property owners.

I must warn you to beware of the spin that the city officials have been putting out concerning MeadowView.  If MeadowView has been that great for Kingsport, then why do we have a declining population, negative retail growth after inflation, and the highest unemployment rate in the Tri-Cities area.  You decide…see data

Mallicote voted not to give back regional sales tax to citizens

April 23rd, 2009 No comments

It appears that Kingsport, TN Alderman Ben Mallicote, who is running for re-election, is trying to defend his vote to not give back the regional sales tax back to the property owners in Kingsport. 

The gang of five (Phillips, Mallicote, Joh, Munsey, and Shupe) voted to use the 1/4 percent regional sales tax for a new Convention Center Expansion.   Kingsport citizens back in mid 1990’s voted for the 1/4 percent regional sales tax to build the Meadowview Convention Center.

This became apparent in the Rotary Club debate yesterday when Alderman Shull stated that he voted to give the regional sales tax back to the citizens.  Since the Convention Center debt was paid off, Alderman Shull as well as Alderman Marsh were attempting to return the money back to the citizens via a property tax reduction.

I am not surprised at Ben Mallicote’s position.  He made the following statement in 2008, “I do not believe all of the doom and gloom about the economy”. 

Sullivan County, TN School Capacity

February 19th, 2009 No comments

At the February 17, 2008 Kingsport, TN Board of Mayor and Alderman meeting, Alderman Pat Shull expressed his views/concerns over a Kingsport Times-News editorial Lawmakers should facilitate school consolidation efforts.

Below is what he presented at the BMA meeting.


TALKING POINTS: SULLIVAN COUNTY SCHOOL CAPACITY

  • INTRO – The Sullivan County Commission is currently debating the issues of declining school enrollment, subsequent over-capacity of Sullivan County Schools, and how best to address these issues to save money without compromising academic standards.
  • This issue should concern  Kingsport residents since the majority of our citizens live and pay taxes in  Sullivan County
  • I’ve surfaced this issue before, especially in a paper that I wrote – any unnecessary spending in the Sullivan County system affects us
  • This past Sunday the Times-News published an Editorial  on this issue
  • First, they praised Commissioner Brittenham for urging cooperation with the respective cities within the county.  I also commend her, and I commend the commission for taking on this issue.  I don’t  know the specific actions that they should take, let’s see the results of their analysis and discussions
  • Tennessee State Law allows for cooperation within a county with multiple school districts  and I urge the respective school boards to work together
  • One commissioner suggested raising the county sales tax rate.  Strictly in terms of supporting Kingsport City schools I believe this action to be unnecessary.
  • The editorial recommends Consolidation of the County and City School Systems under one consolidated Board of Education with taxing authority.  I am adamantly opposed to this.  I cannot support any action that might weaken educational standards in Kingsport City Schools.
  • Further, I believe that creation of a new taxing authority that would compete with the Cities and County Commission for scarce public funds is a very bad idea.
  • In summary, let’s give the County Commission time to work through this issue and determine how to save money.  Kingsport should be prepared to cooperate in ways that make sense, but similar to the first rule of medical practice – we should do no harm to the current City School System.

Alderman Shull’s perspective on the Kingsport Aquatic Center

February 4th, 2009 No comments

I think that your readers may be interested in a quick history on the Aquatic Center.

Before I joined the BMA the board established a fund to repair the Legion Pool. Previous Boards “raided” that fund. The City tried patching the pool several times, but the pool continued to leak.

The BMA then considered starting over again with a new pool in current location. Then the board began entertaining the idea of also having an indoor pool, quickly emerged into the Aquatic Center concept.

Let’s pause – the entire BMA agreed that the current situation – leaking old pool was unacceptable. But then the differences in opinions began to emerge as the City staff provided different versions of an Aquatic Center. While ALL members requested that the City manager discuss the situation with the YMCA, it was never immediately agreed upon (as was inferred last night at the BMA business meeting) that the city would enter the type of agreement with the YMCA that we seem to be headed toward.

Last summer we had a special called session to decide 2 issues: 1) Location of the pool, and 2) Should it be co-located with the YMCA. I voted against BOTH for the following reasons.

- The Meadowview is not the ideal location for the pool. I won’t elaborate here, but I would be glad to discuss further with any citizen. I favored the Legion Pool area

- Co-locating with the YMCA gives them a tremendous competitive advantage over the other fitness center operators. In effect, the city would be subsidizing an already NON-PROFIT organization to the detriment of tax-paying enterprises in the city (Great Body Company and others).

I asked the question of Mr. Gray, the YMCA Board President, that night – what would the Y do if the city built a world-class outdoor pool at the legion area? He replied that they would go forth with their plans (an outdoor & indoor pool plus fitness center) at their site behind K-Mart. He ALSO assured us that they had the funding to do this.

I immediately proposed to my fellow members that we build the city facility at Legion (a great new outdoor pool) and let the YMCA build theirs. Please note that the citizens of Kingsport would then have two options for indoor swimming – the Dobyns-Bennett pool and the YMCA.

Not only do I believe this to be the best option, I’m even more strongly for it considering the Recession that we are now in. What’s wrong with saving tax-payer dollars.

As a side note about the DB pool. It belongs to the citizens – we simply need to get that point across to the BOE.

One other point – under the current concept the Y will only build a fitness center (no pools) right next door to the City Aquatic Center. This will save them a lot of money. I have nothing against the Y. But I’m interested in saving the City money.

Thank you.

Pat Shull, Alderman

Mayor is out of control with spending in a recession

January 28th, 2009 No comments

In this recession, the City of Kingsport, Tennessee has decided to go ahead with borrowing $34.77 million to fund various projects listed below.  While companies and citizens are having a difficult time in this economy, the city is going ahead with the spending of taxpayers money.  The addition of the $34.77 million would put the total debt for the City of Kingsport around $190 million.

According to Moody’s the three bonds have been issued and are listed below.  The dollar amounts below do not include interest expense.

General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 2009A
Sale Date: 22 JAN 2009
Sale Amt: $12.31 million

The detailed spending for this bond is listed in the table below.

K Play Park and Recreation Facility Improvements (Grant Match)$400,000
Various Road Improvements listed below (items 1-5)
1. Cleek Road Phase I – This project consists of adding width to both New Beasonwell Rd. and Cleek Rd. at their intersection with Stone Drive (SR 1, US 1IW) to provide for the separation of left, thru and right turns, reduce delays and improve the alignment between left turning traffic. Also included in this project is the addition of a left turn lane on Stone Dr. westbound for traffic turning onto Cleek Rd. as well as the extension of the eastbound left turn. This project would improve approximately 500′ of New Beasonwell Rd. and 770′ of Cleek Rd. $825,000
2. Harbor Chapel Road – This project would provide a wider two lane roadway with a multi-use mobility path along Harbor Chapel Drive from just south of Skyland Dr. to Cooks Valley Rd. and also improve the alignment of Cooks Valley Road between Harbor Chapel Road and Harbor Springs Dr. At the Road Workshop this was presented as a two phase project due to maintenance of traffic, however at this time we propose that it be design as one project and we will take care of the maintenance of traffic through the contract documents. $1,680,000
3. Clinchfield / Center Intersection Improvements – This project includes the resurfacing of the intersection, mast arm traffic signal, additional right turn lanes and an additional lane in the area of the old railroad bed to align the two Clinchfield St. approaches and provide a left turn northbound. This will remove the grade problem the railroad tracks caused and provide for reduced delays and confusion. $385,000
4. Netherland Inn Road / Industry Drive / Center Street Roundabout – This project would construct a modern roundabout at this intersection, similar to the one built at the intersections of Watauga / Gibson Mill / Ravine. This would Increase safety and reduce delay and confusion experienced at the existing intersection and is an integral part of the development of the Kingsport Riverwalk Redevelopment. $935,000
5. Rock Springs Road Improvements – This project involves upgrading Rock Springs Road from the southwesterly City Limits to Rock Springs Drive (SR 347) to an improved two-lane section. It will provide wider travel lanes, shoulder and some realignments at key locations to improve safety. $1,175,000
Stormwater Management Project – Modeling Study, Land Acquisition, Pipe$700,000
Riverwalk Project – Land acquisition, engineering design studies, select infrastructure improvements$600,000
School Projects – land acquisition, expand band room, security modifications for school entrances$1,100,000
Library Design and renovations – site assessment and preliminary design$200,000
Justice Center – design and architect fees (Total cost $4,000,000)$260,000
Downtown Parking Garage – 300 space garage with retail and office space$3,800,000
Bond #1 General Improvement Bond total for above items$12,305,000

General Obligation Bonds, Series 2009B
Sale Date: 22 JAN 2009
Sale Amt: $7.15 million

The bond above is for rebuilding of the V.O. Dobbins Community Center as well as the creation of a new non-profit center.  This non-profit center will take tenants away from the private sector, which means, the City of Kingsport becomes a competitor with it’s own tax customers.  Alderman Marsh and Shull voted against this project.

Local Option Sales Tax Revenue and Tax Bonds, Series 2009C
Sale Date: 22 JAN 2009
Sale Amt: $15.31 million

The above bond is for the MeadowView Conference Center Expansion.  This expansion is a very controversial subject with many citizens because of it benefiting special interest groups.  The current convention center loses money and it wishful thinking that the expansion would break even.

This new $15.31 million bond for the convention center expansion combined with the $25.7 million already spent for the current convention center and Cattails Golf Course would make it $41 million that the taxpayers will have poured into MeadowView.  The Cattails and the current convention center do not make money.  Alderman Marsh and Shull voted against this project.  See link for additional information on Meadowview

Kingsport’s water and sewer departments overcharges customers?

January 26th, 2009 No comments

The Kingsport Times-News article, Fiscal year 2008 audit OKs Kingsport financial health does some explaining on the recent audit of Kingsport’s finances.

However there seems to be some things left out or a press release issued by the city that never made it into the newspaper.

The press release below in the last two paragraphs state that the five enterprise funds had $16.3 million in cash.

Enterprise funds have to be self-supporting and we know that the Cattails Golf Course does not make any money and the MeadowView Convention Center ended the year with a $1.3 million loss

This would mean that the city is running a profit center in the water and sewer departments.  The raising of water and sewer rates each year has helped this cash position.  How else could they have gotten all of this extra cash?

If the City of Kingsport is doing so well, then how come they did not want to refund the 1/4 percent regional sales tax, back to the citizens when the MeadowView Convention Center was paid off?   Alderman Marsh and Shull tried to get the regional sales tax refunded back to the citizens but was voted down by Mayor Phillips, Vice Mayor Mallicote, Aldermen Munsey, Joh, and Shupe.

Press Release

KINGSPORT – Kingsport garnered a clean opinion of its financial statement for fiscal year 2008 from auditors Blackburn, Childers & Steagall, and rectified all four findings reported in the prior year.

“This audit represents what the citizens of Kingsport expect from their local government, transparency in financial reporting and responsibility with the taxpayer dollar,” Kingsport Audit Committee Chair and Alderman Larry Munsey said Tuesday. “I’m pleased to note that city finance staff corrected four items identified in last year’s audit, while auditors, whose job it is to go over things with a fine-tooth comb, only found three items in need of some work going forward into 2009. By any measure, our city continues to stand on firm financial ground.”

Auditors noted in their 2008 findings the need for a change in the way property purchases and sales are recorded by the Kingsport Industrial Development Board; better record keeping on the disposition of city capital assets; and better segregation of duties within payroll processing.

“We’re very pleased with this report, and already have projects underway to address the findings on capital asset recording and payroll processing,” Kingsport Finance Director Jim Demming said Tuesday. “The third finding on KIDB is just a matter of changing from net reporting to include all costs related to property acquisitions and sales.”

Demming also noted that the addition of a new internal auditor position and realignment of finance staff duties should quickly correct the findings.

Meanwhile, as of June 30, Kingsport posted $14.84 million in its unrestricted fund balance for 2008, with another $3 million to be added over the next few years as the general fund is repaid funding it advanced for the construction of Cattails Golf Course. Board policy is to maintain a minimum of $11.4 million at all times.

City Manager John Campbell said the pace of city government has quickened with regards to a number of key areas, including the development of a higher education center; greater internal support for job recruitment and retention efforts; expansion of commercial and tourism development; and implementing technology to increase efficiency.

“We have the staff in place to ensure we offer the greatest transparency possible,” Campbell said. “At the same time, we continue to operate well within the self-imposed debt limit of 10 percent of assessed property value, with new capital projects funded by the debt service roll-off as old debt is paid off.

“Without a doubt, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen is making sound investments that position our community for continued growth, which is how we keep property taxes low for everyone.”

Kingsport City Government is organized into six reporting units, starting with the general fund which covers emergency services, development services, leisure services and administration.

Five enterprise funds include the water fund, for the production and distribution of clean water, funded solely by user fees; a sewer fund, again self-supporting through user fees; a solid waste fund for garbage collection and disposal, reported separately but funded through property taxes; and two funds that cover MeadowView Conference Center and the golf course.

Collectively, enterprise funds reported $16.3 million in cash as of June 30, a strong cash position Campbell said he intends to maintain.

Help Wanted: Good Political Leaders for City of Kingsport BMA

January 23rd, 2009 No comments

There are four positions on the Kingsport, Tennessee Board of Mayor and Alderman that are available for the term starting on July 1, 2009.

The current BMA members whose terms will expire are Mayor Dennis Phillips, Alderman Valerie Joh, Alderman Ben Mallicote (the vice mayor) and Alderman Pat Shull.

Any person who is a qualified voter of the city and who has resided within the city for at least one (1) year next preceding the election shall be eligible to election to the office of mayor or alderman.

Residence within any area annexed in a year preceding an election shall be counted in meeting the residence requirement of this section.

The City is governed by a seven member Board of Mayor and Aldermen, elected at-large and on a non-partisan basis for four-year staggered terms. The exception to this rule is that the Mayor is elected at-large for a two year term. Elections are held in May during odd numbered years. The new Board of Mayor and Alderman is seated on July 1 of each election year.

If you have a desire to be on the Kingsport Board of Mayor and Alderman, you will need to pick up your petition at the below location.   The deadline to submit completed petitions is noon on February 19, 2009.  25 signatures from registered voters are required on the petition.

Sullivan County Election Commission

3258 Highway 126, Suite 103
Blountville, TN 37617
423-323-6444
Fax: 423-323-6443
Email:
[email protected]

Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

City elections:  2009 schedule

Feb. 19 – Candidate petitions due in county elections office
April 20 – Last day of voter registration.
April 29 to May 14 – Early voting period.
May 19 – Election Day

BIOGRAPHY: PATRICK W. SHULL

January 14th, 2009 No comments

Below is background information on Patrick W. Shull who is running for re-election on the Kingsport, TN Board of Mayor and Alderman.


BIOGRAPHY: PATRICK W. SHULL, COL USA (Ret)

COL (Ret) Pat Shull is a native of Kingsport, TN, a graduate of Kingsport Dobyns-Bennett High School and son of the late Dr. and Mrs. James E. (Mickey) Shull.  COL Shull received his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army after graduating from The Citadel in Charleston, S.C.  He is a graduate of The University of Tennessee with a Master Degree in Public Administration.  COL Shull also graduated from the Logistics Executive Development Course, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College.

COL Shull commanded soldiers at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade level.  He also held key staff positions on the Army Staff in the Pentagon and with major Army headquarters in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Korea.  A combat veteran of the 1991 Gulf War, COL Shull was awarded the Bronze Star medal for exemplary performance of duty during that conflict, and cited in the official U.S. Army history, Certain Victory.  COL Shull received many other awards and honors during his Army career including the Army Legion of Merit.  COL Shull was an Ordnance officer and a senior logistician at the time of his retirement in 2003.  He also held a Top Secret Department of Defense Security Clearance.

After Army retirement COL Shull returned to his hometown of Kingsport to successfully start two different businesses.  He was a defense consultant for two major defense contractors, making numerous trips overseas and throughout the United States in support of the U.S. Army.  COL Shull and his wife (the former Mary M. Redditt) are founders and co-owners of Mary’s Kitchen Shop, Inc. offering fine kitchen-ware and specialty foods at their downtown Kingsport store.  He is also a Municipal Management Consultant for the University of Tennessee, Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS), and a graduate of the UT Local Government Leadership Program.  Currently COL Shull is the Vice-President for Administration/Chief of Staff at Virginia Intermont College, Bristol, VA.

Pat and Mary have two children, Tucker and Margaret who attend John Sevier Middle School.  COL (Ret) Shull is the Executive Vice-President of the Tri-State Chapter of the Association of the U.S. Army.  He is also active in the community as an Alderman on the City of Kingsport Board of Mayor and Aldermen. COL Shull is a member of the Kiwanis Club, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Kingsport Association, past member of the Board of Directors GoodWill Industries of Tenneva, and volunteer in numerous children activities.

Kingsport, Tennessee Code of Ethics

January 7th, 2009 No comments

It is time for the City of Kingsport Board of Mayor and Alderman officials to update their Statement of Disclosure Interests for 2009?  Has any one on the Board of Mayor and Alderman declared bankruptcy?   Has the sources of income changed?  Investments, etc?

The Tennessee Ethics Commission disclosure form seeks the following information below concerning the candidate or elected official.

  • Filer Contact Information
  • Professional Services
  • Office Held or Sought
  • Retainer Fees
  • Sources of Income
  • Bankruptcy
  • Investments
  • Loans
  • Lobbying

You can review the current “2008 Statement of Disclosure of Interests” for the Kingsport, Tennessee BMA members listed below by clicking on the name of the person below.

2008 Statement of Disclosure of Interests

Mayor Dennis PhillipsVice Mayor Ben MallicoteAlderman Larry Munsey
Alderman Valerie JohAlderman Jaunty ShupeAlderman Patrick Shull
Alderman Ken Marsh

You can  report alleged violations of any law within the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Ethics Commission. See link to report violations.   Sworn Complaint (ss-8003

Note, however, that the Tennessee Ethics Commission does not have the authority to enforce local government ethical codes, nor does the Commission have any authority to regulate the conduct of local government officials except as relates to the filing of a Statement of Disclosure of Interests.

Also, see the following link:  Tennessee Local Government Ethical Standards

The Kingsport, Tennessee Code of Ethics below is from the Code of Ordinances for the City of Kingsport, Tennessee.  Use the following link to view all city codes.  CODE OF ORDINANCES

Kingsport, Tennessee Code Of Ethics

Sec. 2-97. Code of ethics–Applicability.

(a)   The provisions of this code of ethics, sections 2-97 through 2-106, are applicable to all full-time and part-time officials, officers, employees, servants, member of any board, agency, commission, authority or corporation, whether compensated or not and any officer, employee, or servant thereof of the city. This includes any separate board, commission, committee, authority, corporation, or other instrumentality appointed or created by the city as set out in T.C.A. § 8-17-102 including, but not limited to: the board of mayor and aldermen, city board of education, and employees, city industrial development board, city housing and redevelopment authority, city emergency communications district board, city regional planning commission, board of zoning appeals, beverage board, Bays Mountain Park commission, electrical board of examiners, gateway review commission, historic zoning commission, mechanical, plumbing and gas board of examiners, parks and recreation advisory committee, public library commission, senior citizens advisory board, sidewalk board, and wastewater appeals board.

(b)   In any situation in which a personal interest under this code of ethics is also a conflict of interest under state law, the provisions of the state law shall govern. In accordance with T.C.A. § 8-17-103 to the extent an issue is covered by an ethical standard addressed by a law of general application, public law of local application, local option law, or private act nothing herein shall be construed to be less restrictive than such laws.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Editor’s note: Ord. No. 5558, § I, adopted June 19, 2007, repealed and reenacted § 2-97 to read as herein set out. Formerly, § 2-97 pertained to free passes, tickets or services prohibited, and derived from the Code of 1981, § 2-37.

Sec. 2-98. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:

City means the City of Kingsport, Tennessee.

Board of mayor and aldermen means the board of mayor and aldermen of the city.

Municipal board means any board, commission, committee, authority, corporation, or other instrumentality appointed or created by the city, including those set out in T.C.A. § 8-17-102.

Personal interest means:

(1)   Any financial, ownership, or employment interest which is the subject of a vote by a municipal board or board of mayor and aldermen not otherwise regulated by state statutes on conflict of interest;

(2)   Any financial, ownership, or employment interest in a matter to be regulated or supervised by the board of mayor and aldermen or a municipal board; or

(3)   Any such financial, ownership, or employment interest of the official’s or employee’s spouse, parent(s), step parent(s), grandparent(s), sibling(s), child(ren), or step child(ren).

Employment interest means a situation in which an official or employee or a designated family member is negotiating possible employment with a person or organization that is the subject of the vote or that is to be regulated or supervised.

Official or employee means and includes any official, whether elected or appointed, officer, employee or servant, or any member of any board, agency, commission, authority or corporation, whether compensated or not, or any officer, employee or servant thereof, of the city.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-99. Disclosure of personal interest.

(a)   An official on the board of mayor and aldermen or any municipal board with the responsibility to vote on a matter shall disclose during the meeting at which the vote takes place, before the vote and so it appears in the minutes, any personal interest that affects, or that would lead a reasonable person to infer that it affects the official’s vote on the matter. In addition, the official may recuse themselves from voting on the matter.

(b)   An official or employee who must exercise discretion relative to any matter, other than casting a vote, and who has a personal interest in the matter that affects or that would lead a reasonable person to infer that it affects the exercise of the discretion shall disclose, before the exercise of the discretion when possible, the interest on a form provided by and filed with the recorder. In addition, the official or employee may, to the extent allowed by law, charter, ordinance, or policy, recuse themselvesfrom the exercise of discretion in the matter.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-100. Prohibition of acceptance of gifts and gratuities.

An official or employee may not solicit, accept, directly or indirectly, on behalf of themselves or any member of their household, any money, gift, gratuity, service, transportation, loan, loan guarantee or other consideration or favor of any kind from any person, other than the city:

(1)   For the performance of an act, or refraining from performance of an act, that he or she would be expected to perform, or refrain from performing, in the regular course of his or her duties; or

(2)   Who has, or is seeking, to obtain, contractual or other business or financial relations with any department of the city or conducts operations or activities that are regulated by the department of the city where the employee is employed or the official has authority to act;

(3)   Who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the official duties of the official or employee;

(4)   Who has some mutual understanding that the gift will influence the official’s or employee’s decisions on behalf of the city.

(5)   That might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence the action of the official or employee or reward such official or employee for past action in executing city business.

(6)   Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, gifts, gratuities, services or favors, which are allowed in section 2-101 are not prohibited by this section.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Editor’s note: Ord. No. 5558, § I, adopted June 19, 2007, enacted provisions intended for use as subsections (a)–(f). To preserve the style of this Code, and at the discretion of the editor, said provisions have been redesignated as subsections (1)–(6).

Sec. 2-101. Acceptance of gifts and gratuities.

The following are not deemed gifts subject to the aforementioned prohibitions in section 2-100:

(1)   A personal gift from a relative or friend, if such gift is unrelated to city matters.

(2)   An item of tangible personal property with an estimated retail value of less than $50.00 from any one person or entity at any one occurrence, provided it is not solicited by the official or employee and is of limited frequency; Employees who are supervisors or acting in such capacity are not permitted to accept cash gifts in any amount when such is related to or as a consequence of such employee’s employment with the city or other entity covered by this chapter.

(3)   A foodstuff gift, plant or flower arrangement which can be shared by everyone in a work area;

(4)   A discount for meals or services that is offered to employees as a marketing strategy by business to encourage trade from a large employee base, provided the discount is not solicited by the employee and is of limited frequency;

(5)   A business meal of a type and kind ordinarily associated with normal business activity;

(6)   Food, refreshments, sports activity or transportation when they are part of an official’s or employee’s participation in a charitable, civic, political or community event that bears a relationship to the official’s or employee’s office and the official or employee is attending in an official capacity;

(7)   A promotional, business logo gift item with an estimated retail value of less than $50.00 that is given for the primary purpose of advertising the business eatery or industry providing the logo gift item; or multiple promotional business logo gift items with a combined estimated retail value of less than $50.00 during a calendar year;

(8)   A door prize that is randomly won or received and where the opportunity to win/receive the gift is random and with low statistical likelihood, and when the employee is eligible for the prize as a consequence of his/her employment with the city or other entity covered by this chapter; provided however, that a door prize with an estimated retail value in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00) that is won as a consequence of employment with the city or other entity covered by this chapter may be accepted provided agift declaration form is completed and submitted to the city manager within five business days of receipt of the gift; and provided further that the final disposition of the door prize (i.e. to be retained by the employee, assigned to city use, or disposed/refused) shall be made by the city manager;

(9)   Receipt of entertainment or athletic tickets or entry to a private or sports/athletic suite, tickets to banquets, luncheons, receptions, local area golf tournaments and such for non-business related purpose; and

(10)   A gift or thing of value provided by the city to an employee in the course of the employer-employee relationship.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-102. Procedure for return of gifts and gratuities.

A gift, or gratuity prohibited in section 2-100 shall be declined and returned to the donor. If a gift is not easily returned, the gift shall be donated to a local charitable agency or organization in the name of the donor. Said donor shall be notified of such, as well as, notified of the city’s gift prohibition regulation. In addition, the following procedures and practices are to be followed:

(1)   A copy of all letters to donors shall be copied to the city manager;

(2)   Questions regarding the acceptability of a certain gift should be directed to the city manager for clarification.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Editor’s note: Ord. No. 5558, § I, adopted June 19, 2007, enacted provisions intended for use as subsections (a) and (b). To preserve the style of this Code, and at the discretion of the editor, said provisions have been redesignated as subsections (1) and (2).

Sec. 2-103. Use of information.

(a)   An official or employee may not disclose any information obtained in his official capacity or position of employment that is made confidential under state or federal law except as authorized by law.

(b)   An official or employee may not, directly or indirectly use or disclose information obtained in his official capacity or position of employment, that has not been made available to the general public, with the intent to result in financial gain for such official or employee or any other person or entity or to acquire or aid another to acquire, a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information, or to speculate, or aid another to speculate, on the basis of the information.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-104. Use of municipal time, facilities, etc.

(a)   An official or employee may not use or authorize the use of municipal time, facilities, equipment, or supplies for private gain or advantage of such official or employee, except to the extent that such are lawfully available to the general public.

(b)   An official or employee may not use or authorize the use of municipal time, facilities, equipment, or supplies for private gain or advantage to any private person or entity, except as authorized by legitimate contract, lease or that is determined by the board of mayor and aldermen to be in the best interest of the city.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-105. Use of position or authority.

(a)   An official or employee may not make or attempt to make private purchases, for cash or otherwise, in the name of the city.

(b)   An official or employee may not use or attempt to use their position to secure any privilege or exemption for themselves or others that are not authorized by the charter, general law, or ordinance or policy of the city.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Sec. 2-106. Violation and penalty.

Any person violating any section of this division shall be deemed guilty of an offense and upon conviction is punishable under the city’s general penalty clause or other applicable laws. An employee who violates any provision of this division is subject to disciplinary action, including termination from employment.

(Ord. No. 5558, § I, 6-19-07)

Secs. 2-107–2-125. Reserved.