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.

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.

King College, a denominational college located in Bristol, Tennessee, has been in discussions with Kingsport, Bristol, and Sullivan County officials to build a medical school in Kingsport and Bristol.

The cost for the medical school would be about $150 million.  King is looking for $50 million to come from the cities of Kingsport ($40 million) and Bristol ($10 million), $50 million from the State of Tennessee, and the remaining $50 million from private donations.

At the July 7, 2009, Kingsport, Tennessee Board of Mayor and Alderman, a resolution was passed on first reading to endorse the King College Medical School Initiative, and pledged its commitment to work with Bristol, Sullivan County, and King College to advance the project.

While it does sound like a good project for the area, there will be a major impact on the taxpayers if this is funded via a property tax increase.

Mayor Dennis Phillips has stated that if Kingsport were to fund $40 million for the project, property taxes would have to be raised 25 cents.

Below are tax rates that have been extracted from the Tennessee Property Tax Rates that show the top 20 cities that have the highest tax rates in Tennessee from 406 different tax rates for the different cities and counties.

I have added 25 cents to the tax rates for the two Kingsport line items (Kingsport-Sullivan and Kingsport-Hawkins) in the table below.  Kingsport, with the 25 cents added, would have a rank of 10 and 12 as having the most expensive tax rates in the state.  Bristol has a rank of 14 and I have no knowledge if they would increase property taxes.

Top 20 Cities with the most expensive property tax rates

* The current city and county combined tax rate for Kingsport-Sullivan County is $4.86 and Kingsport-Hawkins County is $4.86.  Twenty-five cents has been added to each of the Kingsport tax rates in the above table.

The household median income for Kingsport is $34,391 and the Kingsport majority of Kingsport property owners would pay over 5.5 percent of household income ($150k home) for property taxes if  the 25 cents is added to the Kingsport tax rate.  The Kingsport rank is 6 and 7 and Bristol comes in at a rank of 8 in the table below for the largest percent of household income needed to pay property taxes.

A taxpayer funded medical school would reduce the already low Kingsport household income and would reduce the standard of living for the majority of Kingsport citizens so the city could reap the benefits of increased revenue to spend on other pet projects.

Top 20 Cities that take the highest percentage of income for property taxes

* The current city and county combined tax rate for Kingsport-Sullivan County is $4.86 and Kingsport-Hawkins County is $4.86.  Twenty-five cents has been added to each of the Kingsport tax rates in the above table.

The above cities that have a college appear not to have increased the standard of living and have a low household median income.

Below is the household income distribution for Kingsport and the household median income for Kingsport is $34,391.  In the graph below there are 2,636 people who earn less than $10,000  classifying them as living in poverty.

I challenge the elected officials to venture outside of their social and political groups and try to understand the plight of the majority of wage earners in the Kingsport area.  The medical school would bring jobs, but some of these jobs will be imported jobs and the common folks would not have the background or training for these jobs.  Ask what you can do to raise the standard of living (higher income) for Kingsport citizens without imposing a property tax burden.

I feel that the taxpayers should not be taking the risk of funding a medical school when there already is a state funded one in Johnson City.  The need for doctors in this area is questionable since the population is declining in Sullivan County.  If they area has trouble attracting doctors or keeping doctors, then take a hard look at the reason.

Quality of Life issues are important, but a good Standard of Living for local folks just might make the area prosper by increased spending by the majority of citizens.

The bottom line is that the area needs good paying jobs without the additional burden on the taxpayers.

I need to point out that no funding has been voted on so far, but projects such as this grows legs very fast and then its then to late to react.  The intent of this post is to make you aware of the issues so you can make your views know.  Update:  Many elected officials have expressed their support of this project including Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey who may make it a part of his campaign for governor.  Again, I must point out that I am not against the project but am very concerned about it being funded by taxpayers.

Please contact your elected officials and tell them NO to a taxpayer funded denominational medical school.  Click on the email links below and add your comments in your own email program.