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?
It pays to have friends in the right places, eh? This little game of semantics cost Peoria taxpayers about $240 per year for every year the Chief claimed a double homestead exemption.
Sort of like having one set of rules for the “commoners” and one set for the “Elite”. I wonder, should we now genuflect when we are in the presence of the “Chosen”?
Dave Ryan said “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.”
This is not true. I was sent a bill for the difference when it was discovered on a tax appeal that two properties under our ownership had an owner/occupied exemption. Ask Tripp O’connor, County Collector, if that ever happens. Guess we are not one of “the chosen”.
I’m amazed that they are allowing this “legal compliance” to meet the residency requirement. I know of several employees that have been forced to resign or be fired for non-compliance and weren’t allowed the opportunity for “paper compliance”. I would agree — either enforce the requirement or eliminate it altogether. Nothing like making our top executives lie and fake documents in order to meet a standard that no one appears to care about. I’m amazed that the elected officials allow this to continue. I’m so tired of the duplicity they exhibit — take strong positions in public on an issue and then turning around an either ignoring the regulations or privately indicating that they don’t support it.
On this specific case, everyone knew when Tomblin was appointed that he wouldn’t be complying except on paper and everyone nodded and winked when he indicated that “he’d be moving into his residence on Maplewood”…….I believe the penalty for non-compliance is termination. Anyone with the cajones to push that?
This is but one of many examples of why the trust in the City organization is low. If we can’t be honest about something as simple as residency, how can we trust administrators and elected officials on more important issues.
A very real display about how true integrity is a think of the past. In this case, clearly lacking by the Fire Chief as well as our “enabling” elected representatives that turn a blind eye to it. And although one has to wonder if this is of any huge consequence, the lesson is that our local leaders see absolutely nothing wrong to have one standard for themselves, and another for those less relevant. This country is doomed. It will be interesting to see if another enabling body, The Peoria Journal Star, is willing to report on it. Searching past coverage of the Police Chief to see how favorably he has been reported on would be a good indication as to the answer. Sad.
The real question is, who cares? He pays property taxes to the City for all you who think that, from a moral standpoint, to be employed by the City means you should pay taxes to the City. Its pretty much given that he does all his shopping and other business in Peoria so his sales taxes go there too.
Either way, why does this matter? I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why a City employee has some mysterious moral obligation to live in the corporate boundaries of said City.
Tony – the issue isn’t whether or not the City should have a residency requirement. That’s an argument you should take up with the City Council.
The issue is that the City Council has REQUIRED that management employees live within the City of Peoria. Chief Tomblin knew that upon taking the promotion and agreed that he would comply. He could easily have not taken promotion (and extra pay and power) if he didn’t want to comply. Since that point in time, he’s not been honest or in compliance with his conditions of employment.
The City Council should either enforce the rules (true enforcement not fake paper compliance) or eliminate the requirement. I don’t care either way. But I find very hypocritical that they require compliance and then look other way when certain people violate.
I’m assuming the house on Maplewood Drive is actually just sitting there empty since we’re not stupid – we all know he isn’t living there. I think we are paying this guy too much if he can afford to have two houses with one not even being used.
can you say Don Saltzman!
So some of you think the City should physically stake out employee’s houses to see who, if anyone, lives there? What if for example he had a house on some hunting ground and during whatever season he was interested in he commuted to and from work to his hunting house, pretty much living there?
I hate to tell you but mail, drivers license, and voters registration pretty much denotes legal residence. There’s really no way around that fact. You can go on and on all day about ifs and opinions but in the end that fact won’t go away no matter how hard you try.
Those of you who disagree seem to think the City should be able to dictate where an employee sleeps at night.
The question that should be asked is “Does the residency requirement serve the best interests of the City in terms of attracting and retaining quality candidates?”
One person posted that Mr. Tomblin could have refused the position, however, as a taxpayer, that is not what I want to happen. If he was deemed by the City as the “best qualified” for the job, I want HIM to be in the job, not the 2nd or 3rd choice.
I also think it is an unreasonable burden to ask existing employees to relocate. Mr. Tomblin is a perfect example. I assume he has been employed by the City for a number of years and happily lived in his house in Dunlap. Why should an employer ask an employee that they deem “best qualified” to move into management take on the expense and stress of selling a home and moving as they take on additional work responsibilities? In this current real estate market, an employee would have to receive quite a promotion to offset the cost of selling, purchasing, and moving.
I think a reasonable radius requirement should be applied, particularly in the case of police, fire, or other emergency response positions not a residency requirement.
Frustrated — i don’t necessarily disagree with you. However, those are not the rules that are in place. I sense that you and Tony would prefer than employees lie, fake, and delude rather than comply with the rules that are in place. It’s not like anyone placed this burden on him unknowingly or without his agreement. I’m fine if the rules change — but I can’t condone deceit and lying because someone doesn’t want to comply with a condition of employment.
I think both of you should put your efforts into convincing the City Council to change their policy (since this was one imposed directly by the City Council) rather than supporting an employees efforts to circumvent the policy.
Ever hear the phrase “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”? Well in this case the City has set up a game, and of course the employees will play it, after all they are human.
Why are any of you surprised? They (The City Elite) have always been two sets of rules in this town. Those for the common folk and those for the elite. If you ran a city car into a building at 2am and demolished the car, you would be held accountable unless you are the elite. Anyone recall this incident???? If you poke a cop in the chest, you get tazed and handcuffed and arrested. Unless you are the elite. If you are drunk in public, you get arrested, unless you are the elite. If you work for the city and file 26 hrs of overtime in one day after a snow storm and then claim to be at your empty house in Peoria, you get fired unless you are the elite. This is a non issue. Nothing will happen. Give it up.
Anyone else get an appraisal from the city that seems really high? Ardis must be planning on gouging us all with high taxes. If my house would sell for what they appraised it for, I’d sell it tomorrow!
We got our appraisal today stating that the FMV was $184,000! The highest any of the houses have sold in our neighborhood over the last 4 years has been $142,000 and that was 4 years ago, nothing has sold since then!
GPSD bill we got yesterday also shows that the bill tripled.
Peo Proud – I am not condoning cheating. My point is that the City should never have passed a policy that put employees in such a no win situation — deny yourself career advancement and growth or move. The City’s priority should be to place qualified individuals in jobs, particularly in key positions.
Our appraisal was down …. -8.45%.
Hum … think our taxes will go down? …. not a chance!
Had Tomblin been honest and listed the Maplewood property as “non-owner occupied” he would have had to register it with the City Inspections department as well. I’m sure there are many property owners (that own one home in the City and one outside the city, maybe a winter home in Florida) who would love to have figured out how to work around that requirement and not have to register their mostly “vacant” house as “non-owner occupied”.
Tony,
if you don’t like the law then change it. Justification for breaking it runs through the minds of everyone to jaywalking to speeding to robbing banks to being drunk and smacking a cop to drunk driving to murder. Same thought process just a matter of semantics.
You are so missing the point! If the law isn’t applied equitably it hurts us all. If applicants knew that the residency requirement wasn’t enforced perhaps we would have had more applicants. How many individuals are there out there that may have put in for a position, but chose not to because they didn’t want to move? What about all the less relevant employees (according to them), as Sandberg suggested, that might have been terminated or forced to resign because they were unwilling or unable to meet the residency requirement? Do you think they will be a tad miffed if this factoid were made public? Would they have a legitimate beef with the city? Think so. Does it make our city look nepotistic and schizophrenic? Possibly open us up for a lawsuit? You betcha! You sound like a pretty smart guy. Perhaps the Fire Chief is a friend and that is clouding your judgement.
Possibly open us up for a lawsuit? You betcha!
Who’da thunk that? That is …. IF you have the $, can find a lawyer who would be willing to represent you AND you have the fortitude to be drug through the muck and mire!
Perhaps the Fire Chief is a friend and that is clouding your judgement.
A very common affliction in local, state and national politics. Wonder if there could be a vaccine for that?
Do you really think he is the only person in Peoria County to have two residences with both listed as owner occupied? I could be wrong but to me it seems that when you buy a house it defaults to owner occupied if you don’t state off the bat that the house is going to be a rental. If you live in a house and buy a second house before you sell the first, technically both could be owner occupied until you sell the first. How many people have done that and then couldn’t sell the first house so they decide to rent it out. Do you think all of those people call up and change the owner occupied status? I have no clue if Tomblin planned on selling the Dunlap house, I’m just saying I’m willing to bet he’s not the only one with two owner occupied houses.
for years Josh…..come on….
Josh — he had no intention of selling the Dunlap house — it’s where he and his family LIVE!!!!
(Repeating my comment from the previous post) Honest question to the author and anyone who has ever brought up this issue in any town, anywhere: What’s the big deal? No sarcasm intended. I just don’t see why stuff like this is important to people. IMHO it should not be – at all. Much bigger things to worry about in the world.
Ha! I just knew it was a matter of time before someone brought in the old “everybody does it” excuse -The catch-all-end- all rationalization of a spoiled and entitled generation that excuses every citizen of any shred of personal responsibility for everything. CJ did you e-mail the Chief and ask for his comments about this deception as opposed to him letting his minions do his dirty work?
MW — Can you be more specific? What do you mean by “stuff like this” or “this issue”? There are a couple of different issues expressed in the post, so I’m not sure to what you’re objecting.
Hey MW – maybe because it’s the law! Residency requirements are nothing new and there are a million reasons why a community would want their key people working and living among them. How about googling the topic and educating yourself a little or is that too much to ask? Long story short – if you covet a position of power, trust and responsibility you should walk the walk.
I didn’t say he intened to sell the dunlap house. My point is that there are probably a lot more of incidents like this, someone having 2 owner occupid houses and therefore the exemption. Maybe the assesors office should do an audit of their records.
Maybe Josh should use a spell check.
Josh may need spell check, but he’s right. There are many, many more…….
Here’s an idea! Let’s just do away with all residency requirements. No more out of state tuition, legislators can choose any district in the country they want to run for, Families in Distrcit 150 can choose Dunlap schools. Arnold Schwarzanegger can stay in L.A. and run for Governor of Illinois. Peoria cops can commute from Chicago and just take longer shifts. Heck let’s get our judges from Chicago too. Screw residency requirements! They don’t matter anyway. This will be a victory for carpet baggers everywhere!
Where does it end?
Well put.
Raising concerns about where people live. You are not the first to do so obviously, so I don’t mean to pick on you. I have seen this in other communities and areas as well. I just don’t see the big deal. It doesn’t seem worth raising a ruckus about, that’s all. Have a good day.
This is what happens when the Mayor is in the pocket of the Firefighters and there union – screw the rules, and taxpayers as it may suit them. Disgusting Democrats.
UnclePugsly………….if you really think the FF union has the mayor in their pocket….you are absolutely clueless as to what goes on. And most firefighters are registered repubs….thats a fact that is quite well known.
Neal, Thanks for your kind words and informing me that most FF are Republicans – Most I know strongly endorsed Quinn. Oh well.
Please inform me why the situation with Tomilon has been allowed? He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong given all the effort he made to make it appear as though he were in compliance.
Nothing new for city management. The street and sewer manager has done this for years with the knowledge of past city managers, past and present public works directors with no qualms. Most likely because he is a fawning sycophant of the city council and anyone with power or at least a position that appears to have it. The big issue with Tomblin, Haste or whomever is integrity. Leadership should be an example for the subordinates. It all starts at the top.
Did the City ever address this issue?