On Monday, the Supervisor of Assessments office was made aware that Tomblin has two properties in Peoria County — one in the City of Peoria and one in Dunlap — listed as owner-occupied. On Tuesday, adjustments were made to those properties. The Dunlap property (PIN 0815300023) is now listed as “Residential Non-Owner Occupied” for tax year 2011, and states under “Public Notes,” “Kent and Laura Tomblin live at 18-05-304-013 [1120 N. Maplewood] and is [sic] getting the owner occupied exemption on that parcel. Exemption removed from this parcel for 2011.” Similarly, on the Maplewood property (PIN 1805304013), it states under “Public Notes,” “08-15-300-012 is also owned by Kent Tomblin. That parcel was changed to Residential Non Owner Occupied for 2011. He lives at this parcel address and will receive the owner occupied exemption on this parcel for 2011.” Supervisor of Assessments Dave Ryan says that usually owner-occupancy is determined by whether the mailing address for the tax bill matches the property address. In this case, the property tax bill for each site is mailed to each respective address, leading to the confusion. He added that when mistakes like this are uncovered, the exemptions are corrected for future tax years, but no retroactive action is taken for the years it was incorrect — unless it was in the County’s favor, in which case they would reimburse the taxpayer for overcharges going back the last three years.

As far as the residency issue goes, Tomblin has legal cover, which is apparently sufficient for the City’s residency requirement. Tomblin doesn’t actually live at the Maplewood address, as the neighbors there will testify, but he has sufficient documentation to satisfy his superiors at City Hall. The County recognizes the house as owner occupied. The County, in addition to looking at whether the site and mailing addresses match, can also look at where the property owner is registered to vote. Tomblin is registered to vote at the Maplewood address. An inquiry made to Peoria City Manager Patrick Urich has so far gone unanswered, but according to other sources, the City’s stance is that they believe Tomblin lives at the Maplewood address.

So it appears that any management employee who wishes to skirt the City’s residency requirement can do so rather easily. It’s possible that they wouldn’t even have to go through the trouble of buying a house. One could simply rent a cheap apartment like those in apartments in columbia sc and claim it as one’s legal residence for tax and voting purposes, then actually live elsewhere in the tri-county area. It’s difficult at this point to understand why we have a residency requirement at all. If it’s not really important that a City management employee live in the City, then why not just get rid of that policy? Seriously, why put Tomblin in the position of having to fake his residency in the City if the City really doesn’t care in the first place? What’s the point?

On the other hand, if it is important that a City management employee live in the City, why don’t they enforce it? If they can’t because the wording is too weak or ambiguous, why not strengthen it?