Category Archives: Peoria Fire Department

Fire Chief receiving owner occupied exemption on two homes

Peoria Fire Chief Kent Tomblin
I visited the Recorder of Deeds office at the Peoria County Courthouse today to check on the ownership of two homes that appeared to be owned by Fire Chief Kent Tomblin. The County’s website withholds the names of property owners, but those names can be obtained from the Recorder of Deeds’ office since it is public information.

Kent M. Tomblin is listed as the sole owner of 1120 N. Maplewood Ave. in Peoria (PIN #1805304013) and the joint owner with Laura L. Tomblin of 13104 N. Duggins Rd. in Dunlap (PIN #0815300023). Both homes are listed as “owner occupied,” giving the Chief a property tax exemption on both houses. Both the Recorder of Deeds office and the County Assessor office verified that, legally, a homeowner can only receive an owner-occupied exemption on one residence — that is, a homeowner in Peoria County can only have one primary residence. The County took the information on these two properties and said they would look into the matter to determine which residence is the primary one.

If the Dunlap residence is found to be primary, it would cause further problems for Mr. Tomblin since the Fire Chief is required to live in the City of Peoria according to City policy. When asked about whether the Chief is breaking the City’s residency requirement, City attorney Randy Ray said he would have to research it.

Fire Chief breaking City residency requirement

Since November 19, 2002, the City Council has required by policy that “a person promoted to a management position must be or become a resident of the City of Peoria.” In August 2006, when then-Assistant Fire Chief Kent Tomblin was applying for retiring Chief Roy Modglin’s job, the Journal Star reported, “Tomblin, 50, a 27-year member of the department, lives in Dunlap but owns a house on Maplewood Avenue near Bradley University and plans to move there within the year, he said Wednesday.”

Tomblin got the job on February 19, 2007. He still owns a home at 1120 N. Maplewood. But he also still owns his home in Dunlap — at 13104 N. Duggins Rd. This is not one of those Dunlap addresses that is actually in City of Peoria boundaries. It’s outside Peoria completely. If you look up the tax records for both houses, they both say, “owner occupied.” So, where does the Fire Chief live?

One way to establish legal residency is by the address on your utility bills. The telephone is a utility, and in the phone book under “Kent Tomblin,” guess what is listed as his address? You got it: 13104 N. Duggins Rd., Dunlap — and a Dunlap phone number, too. I’ve heard from a reliable source that it’s the address that is on his personal checks as well.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the fire chief still lives in Dunlap over four years since he was promoted. Not only that, but one has to wonder how he can legally claim both residences as “owner occupied.” You can only occupy one house or the other.

Whether the City should have a residency requirement or not is a topic for another blog post. The fact is that the City does require it for the fire chief, and he should follow the rules. He should be setting an example for the men and women under his command.

What really gets me is the brazenness of it all. He’s listed in the phone book as a Dunlap resident. I mean, he isn’t even trying to hide it at this point, apparently because there are no consequences for breaking the rules at City Hall.

City to add nine new firefighters thanks to grant

The City of Peoria has been awarded a grant from the Department of Homeland Security for $1,558,107 that can be used to hire nine new firefighters. According to the council communication, “The grant covers both salary and benefits for the firefighters” for two years. The council will vote on accepting the grant at Tuesday’s council meeting.

The fire department applied for the grant through the Staffing For Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants program, which “was created to provide funding directly to fire departments and volunteer firefighter interest organizations in order to help them increase the number of trained, ‘front line’ firefighters available in their communities.”

More kids being kids (UPDATED 2x)

Remember when we were kids, and how much fun it was to point fireworks at police officers and firefighters and shoot them off?

What, you didn’t do that? Well, that’s just the latest incident of kids being kids here in Peoria:

A “major incident” involving a large group of people shooting fireworks at police and firefighters occurred near the Taft Homes just before 10 p.m. Sunday, about the same time the fireworks show on the riverfront was ending.

Police had to briefly shut down Adams and Eaton streets, near Taft, as they dispersed the large crowds.

No officers or firefighters were injured, dispatchers said on the radio.

At one point, police were ordered to tell those in the crowd to go into their apartments, leave or be arrested for unlawful assembly.

I’m sure it was just a party that was letting out, and this large group was on its way home, having a little fun. There was no property damage or injuries, so there’s no reason for concern. In fact, I wonder if the fireworks were really being shot at police and fire personnel at all, given that there are no interviews with neighbors who corroborate that story.

[/sarcasm]

UPDATE: Another news source in town — 1470 WMBD — is now reporting that there were injuries. “One police officer was treated for minor burns and hearing loss, while police say a fire fighter was treated for hearing loss,” according to their report. They also say that police described the event as a “riot.” I question whether these reports are true, however, since the Journal Star said there weren’t any injuries. After all, the Journal Star has editors that vet these stories before printing them to make sure they’re accurate. They wouldn’t just print something they heard on police radio without verifying it with two other sources. Right?

UPDATE 2: The Journal Star has updated their story. They are now confirming that there were injuries to police officers and firefighters. And they have some video of the incident. I was most interested in the City’s plans to deal with this situation in the future:

The fire engine never made it to the burning trash bin. [Division Chief Gary] Van Voorhis said the fire was not threatening residents or property and was allowed to burn as officers assisted the engine in turning around and exiting Taft. […] Van Voorhis added that firefighters have been targeted by fireworks before, but that the magnitude of the incident Monday was unprecedented. In response, the department will review its policy of how to respond to crowded areas with fires that don’t appear to threaten anyone’s physical well-being or nearby property.

Peoria police, too, will devise enhanced security measures for Taft Homes next year, Burgess said. Revelers there have traditionally held private firework displays on the Fourth and previously made targets of police and passersby, though not to the same extent as Monday.

If I were on the City Council, I would also want to know why this “tradition” of illegal fireworks displays on PHA property and targeting of police and passersby has not been addressed before it escalated to this level. I would also want to know what effect recent cuts to police staffing levels have had in the police department’s ability to respond to this riot.

Ardis pooh-poohs city-run ambulance service, but explanation raises more questions

The City Council candidates are often asked at forums what ideas we have for generating more revenue for the city. Gary Sandberg has suggested that the City should provide its own ambulance service, severing its contract with Advanced Medical Transport (AMT). The way he sees it, we already have a professional fire department that is first on the scene and capable of providing basic life support (BLS); it would not take much to have these guys trained to provide advanced life support (ALS) as well.

Mayor Jim Ardis apparently heard about this and took up his pen to write an editorial in the Journal Star. He says:

During the current campaign for City Council, some candidates have suggested that the city consider starting its own ambulance service. As a 14-year veteran on the council, I have studied this question time and again and the answer is always the same. A city-operated ambulance provider will require a taxpayer subsidy from our general fund and lose millions of dollars each year.

AMT doesn’t receive a taxpayer subsidy. In fact, AMT pays the city a dispatch fee that generates $100,000 per year. We have a good medical emergency response system. It is not broken and meets the highest national standards defined to date. Private studies have provided the same conclusion.

Start-up costs to begin transport would be nearly $3.5 million for equipment and training. AMT writes off more than $2 million per year as uncollectable, bad debt. The company also discounts $5 million for Medicare and Medicaid. The city could not afford to lose a penny of revenue and still wouldn’t run this operation in the black. Simply put, transport is not a core service for our citizens.

…Our ambulance service agreement with our professional fire department is an idea that works. Adding to our already strained payroll is an idea that does not make sense.

I’m not going to dismiss Ardis’s criticism out of hand. But this explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Given the numbers put forth in this editorial, one has to wonder how AMT didn’t go bankrupt years ago. Why is AMT able to operate in the black, but the City of Peoria couldn’t? Since AMT is a not-for-profit organization, I took a look at its Form 990.

According to the 2009 Form 990 (the latest available), AMT’s total revenue was $11,696,795. That revenue went up every year from 2005 ($9,224,551) to 2009. Total expenses were $10,776,223, including the executive director’s salary of $256,549, the assistant executive director’s salary of $113,612, and the controller’s salary of $110,651. Considering they’re a non-profit company, and thus their services are priced accordingly, I’d say they’re doing pretty well, and have been for a number of years.

Again, I’m not saying that Ardis is necessarily wrong — I’m just saying his article doesn’t explain why AMT is able to make almost a million dollars a year and pay handsome salaries to its top brass, but somehow the City would lose money hand over fist if it provided the same service. I’m also unclear why we would have to “[add] to our already strained payroll.” Why couldn’t the existing personnel who are already BLS-trained also be ALS-trained? There would be training and equipment costs to be sure, but why couldn’t those costs be covered by the revenue the City would receive the same way AMT’s training and equipment costs are covered by the revenue they receive?

We need Paul Harvey to give us the rest of the story.

Guest Editorial: Is the PFD prepared for this?

New York Crane Collapse

Are we prepared for this in Peoria? With our current Fire manpower? Machines? Equipment? Budget? Imagine a crane like that falling into the Gerlach building at OSF. I understand the use of mutual aid (MABAS), but will surrounding departments be used even though there is no ongoing training together for an event? When was the last time PFD called for help from, say,a volunteer department? Likewise, when was the last time a volunteer department called the PFD?

An event like this would overwhelm the PFD even with calling in all off duty people. Stations would be empty and who would provide service? East Peoria? Pekin? They would most likely be called to the scene. We would be lucky to get other paid departments here in a short time. Canton, Bloomington, Normal, etc. There are excellent departments that surround Peoria, but the mentality is “they are just volunteers.” Look at most of the PFD and you will see a strong volunteer background. Why does the PFD shun outside agencies?

Think about this.

Yes, I am a Volunteer fireman. I have great respect for the men and officers of the PFD! I just have a problem as to the “Us and Them” issue. We both train, provide service and have pride; just some get paid more than others.

Fire Station 11 compromise in the works

Fire Truck GraphicMy sources tell me that a compromise is in the works for Fire Station 11. You may remember that a previous council cut an engine company from the station as a cost-savings move three years ago. Ever since then, every election has included the question of how/when the council will fully staff Fire Station 11.

Well, the fire department has recently been utilizing the city’s GIS system to plot response times from each of the fire stations. Basically, they map out where each fire station is and then draw a circle around it representing a four-minute response time for water coverage. When they analyzed the results of that exercise and looked at where the circles overlapped and intersected, they determined that Fire Station 11’s area of service was adequately covered by the other fire stations.

Although water coverage is good, there is another issue, and that’s Basic Life Support (BLS) calls. In that area, Fire Station 11’s coverage is not so good. Since they don’t have an engine, they have to run a ladder truck for BLS calls. Well, there are many problems with that, not the least of which is speed. People in need of basic life support need help fast, and ladder trucks are not the speediest vehicles.

But another problem is wear and tear on the vehicle. Ladder trucks cost about three quarters of a million dollars and should last 15 to 20 years, according to Fire Prevention Chief Greg Walters (I found this out while researching another story; Walters is not the source for this post). However, by sending the ladder truck out on BLS calls, that’s beating the heck out of the truck and if something doesn’t change they’ll probably have to replace that truck sooner. That kind of blows the cost savings the council was hoping to get by removing the engine company.

So, the compromise that’s being talked about is this: Instead of putting an engine company back in at Fire Station 11 (which is, I believe, 11 firefighters), they would put in, for lack of a better term, a BLS company (which would only be 5 firefighters, if I understand correctly). The BLS company would have their own vehicle, but it wouldn’t be a fire engine or the ladder truck. That would be cheaper than reinstating an engine company (5 more firefighters instead of 11), would save wear and tear on an expensive ladder truck allowing it to stay in service longer, and would adequately serve the Fire Station 11 area.

That’s all the information I have. I couldn’t find anyone willing to talk on the record about it. And I still have some questions, like why couldn’t they just add a vehicle instead of a vehicle and five more guys. If I had to speculate, I’d guess that it has something to do with the firefighters union. But I imagine those details will come out eventually. In fact, I understand it will be coming before the council sometime relatively soon. Said one person I asked for comment, “I don’t want to jinx it.”

Prospect properties used for fire training

Two properties on Prospect avenue owned by Peoria Public School District 150 are being used for training by the Peoria Fire Department (PFD). The graphic below shows all the properties purchased by the district:

Of those properties, two are being used by the Peoria Fire Department: 2144 and 2208. In addition, 2126 was approved for fire department use, but was razed by the school district before the PFD got a chance to use it.

Fire Prevention Chief Greg Walters said he contacted District 150 when he heard the District was planning to raze three of the houses. He asked if the Fire Department could use them to conduct training, educate people on fire damaged property insurance tips and soon after such a positive request the District approved his request. “We have an excellent working relationship with District 150,” Walters said.

In a letter sent to District 150 Director Dave Ryon (Buildings, Grounds, and Maintenance) dated April 13, Chief Walters explained that the PFD would be using the houses for hands-on training:

We will simulate fire scenes and the activities involved without setting fire to the building or buildings. We will use theatrical smoke periodically to simulate real conditions inside the structures. This theatrical smoke is not harmful to the environment nor to any individuals who may breathe it. In addition, we will be breaching walls and performing ventilation operations on the roofs of these structures as needed.

Walters didn’t comment on the condition of the houses before the training started except to say that a stairwell was missing in one of the houses and that they were “safe structures” for conducting firefighter training. Buildings the City of Peoria has slated for demolition due to code violations are often in such bad shape that they’re not safe enough for indoor firefighter training. So the District’s houses, which are in good shape structurally, “were a godsend” for training purposes, Walters explained.

In addition to breaching walls, the training included cutting holes in the floors and simulating fire suppression and rapid intervention scenarios. However, no fire was set to the structures, and the PFD was not allowed to damage the exterior of the houses, “for aesthetic reasons.”

District 150 purchased the homes in April and May of 2006 as part of their ill-fated plan to build a school adjacent to Glen Oak Park. The Park Board declined to enter into a land-sharing agreement at the end of last year, effectively killing the project. The property at 2144 Prospect was purchased for $89,000 and 2208 Prospect was purchased for $133,500. The assessed value of each property at the time was $63,750 and $89,190, respectively.

While I am deeply concerned that the school board has squandered thousands of dollars by purchasing this property over market value and now razing some of it, I think the Fire Department is doing the right thing by taking the opportunity to use these properties for training purposes. It’s sort of like making lemonade when life gives you lemons. It’s a travesty that the school board has allowed the properties to come to this, but if the opportunity can be seized to allow our firefighters to practice their skills, at least some good can come out of a bad situation.

2144 Prospect Ave. 2208 Prospect Ave.
The two houses being used for firefighter training are pictured above. 2144 is on the left and 2208 is on the right, obscured by large trees in the front yard.

Journal Star: Better to burn to death than be murdered

Does that headline sound silly to you? Me too. But the Journal Star’s editorial Tuesday argues just that. Instead of fully staffing Fire Station 11, we should spend that money on police protection, they said. “Firefighting and other emergency response are important, but every penny spent on reopening Fire Station 11 is one that won’t go to added police protection.”

Fire and police protection are both among the most essential, basic services a city can provide, and their funding comes pretty much exclusively from the city. So police and fire protection should not be pitted against each other for funding. Something is wrong in a city that can’t fully staff their fire stations and provide adequate police protection at the same time.

There must be other places where the city could cut truly unnecessary spending. (Fire protection is not what I would call “unnecessary.”)

This may sound like sour grapes, but the more I think about it, the more I question the money the city spends on District 150. Think about it. The school district is its own taxing body, and the city has gained nothing by trying to cooperate with the school board, so why are we sending them over a million dollars a year in operating, capital, and debt service support? The fire and police departments can’t tax the public directly for their needs, so it would seem to me that the city’s money would be better spent on fire and police instead of the school board.

If we have to start picking and choosing, I don’t know how the city could responsibly cut fire protection while still spending money on a school district that is essentially double-dipping our tax dollars.