Loading...
Dean Rampson_1829 Madison Street AssessmentTO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Dean Rampson DATE: October 3, 2008 Mr. Dean Rampson sent correspondence to the City Council requesting that his $5,772 sewer assessment be rebated for work done at 1829 Madison Street. In this letter, Mr. Rampson expressed several concerns. I have met with City Engineer Gus Psihoyos and he has prepared the attached response to Mr. Rampson's concern in the memorandums dated September 26, 2008 and October 3, 2008. - Gus Psihoyos recommends that Mr. Rampson's sewer assessment not be rebated. I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval. ~~ Michael C. Van Milligen ~~~"~~# MCVM/jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer THE cr°rY o~ _ ,: -- Masterpiece orr. the Mir yissipp TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager Engineering Department City Hall 50 W. 13~ Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 563.589.4270 563.589.4205 (fax) www.cityofdubuque.org FROM: Robert Schiesl, Assistant City Engineer ',4, SUBJECT: 1805 Madison Exc. -Dean Rampson Letter DATE: October 3, 2008 INTRODUCTION This is in response to a letter sent by Mr. Dean Rampson with items of interest and requesting follow up information, one of the items being the water service excavation at 1805 Madison Street. DISCUSSION I spoke with the owner of the property, Mr. Aaron Young and the contractor, Bel Aire Construction on September 25, 2008. From this conversation it was determined that Bel Aire Construction will be performing the asphalt replacement, water stop box lowering, parklawn regrading and seeding, and joint fill between the asphalt and curb as required in the letter sent by City Engineering to both parties. I again spoke with Bel Aire Construction on Friday, October 3~d and the contractor was on site completing the remaining work. Staff was told that all work would be fully completed by the end of the working day on October 3~d ACTION TO BE TAKEN This information is provided as a follow up to the Dean Rampson letter. THE ~'ITY ©F ~~' ~ _ ~"~ P'~, U V` 1V.~c~sfe~~iece on t~~e 1~lississi~a~i 1 Bel Aire Construction Cedar Lake Building Group LLC 3288 Lakefront Drive Dubuque IA 52003 Re: 1805 Madison Excavation September 23, 2008 CERTIFIED MAIL Aaron M. & Sara J. Young 910 Valentine Drive Dubuque IA 52003 Dear Bel Aire Construction & Mr. & Mrs. Aaron Young, End neering Department , City Hall 50 W.13~~ Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 , 563.589.4270 563.589.4205 (fax) www. cityofdubu que. org The letter dated July 9, 2008, sent to Bel Aire Construction identified the work that must be performed in order to have an approved and satisfactory project at 1805 Madison Street, relative to the public right-of-way work for this water service repair. A discussion was held on July 29, 2008 with Dustin of Bel Aire, Bob Schiesl, Assistant City Engineer and Jane Smith, EAII, regarding the work that was required and a time flame for this work to be completed. At that fine it was noted that the owner was to seed arid water the parklawn area, according to Bel Aire Construction. As of this date none of the items have been addressed except the small curb section that was tipping out arid creating a safety hazard. This is notification that the asphalt patch must Ue replaced, water stop boxes lowered to ground level, black dirt, seed, straw and/or sod must be placed in thz public right-of-way and the areas that have separated between the curbing and existing asphalt must be cleaned out aizd an appropriate, City approved, asphalt fill material placed to eliminate any water infiltration. TI1is work must be completed within the nexE thixfy (30) dam. Failure to perform this will result in the City performing the work and assessing the contractor plus an administrative fee of 15%. As a reminder the excavation policy requires the work to be performed in a good and workman-like lnan.ner, leaving the area in as good as, if not better, condition than prior to the work. Please contact us with your time schedule for this work. Sincer~y, f~xie Smith ,Engineering Assistant Enc. cc: Bob Schiesl, Asst. City Engineer Jon Dienst, CE y i ~` PERMIT TO WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ~ ~~ ; CITY OF DUBUQUE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PERNIIT # D,~! TE: _ , ~ --' _~• ~,/COMPLF~'I'ION DATE: -n. ~~ a:~~i;-~g ` LOCATION #: r~.L l_<J ~ STREET: /J~ ~~~,~._~.~_~~ +I t'~? . _ O `~ BETWEEN " & !~. ~~t~i'l.~r~..J'('~~ °` ~~,';J,.:, , PURPOSE: AL SIDEWALK (4") SIZE S.F. NEW REPLACE SIDEWALK (6") SIZE S.F. NEW REPLACE APPROACH (6") SIZE S.F. NEW REPLACE • ,~EXCAVATIOIV SIZFi` In 4! ~ ;`~ S.F. DEPTH FT ~ ~ `PEN CUT ~ BORING rt! C''~'~ COMPACTION TEST YES NO PASS FAIL ~n ,'` ` -~ ` Tested by: °'~_- ~ ` r-~, : ,K~,r~-.h:, PURPOSE: ~ NEW' ~ . R~l?1~IR ~---~ ~ 1 WATER' ; \ SEWfiR.~-`" ?~Tele~honef"' Power Gas Other: . °_=~ ,.~ % `f ;' ~ SURFACE REPLACEMENT BAY: CITY' _ CONTRACTOR ~_r__- ----'~ 1~0-YEAR STREET: NO ~5'E~__.- 'f IF CONCRETE FULL SLAB REPLACEMENT REQUIRE I ~-- ,,~ IiPC Disfiict: Yes No- ~ Brick: Street Walk Alley CHARGE: $ 'F <~ ~~r Erosion Control Plan Required: Yes No (1 acre/43,560sfl ~ to To be billed out by Finance Dept. d' ~~ ~ ~ ~,,~. to ~~ f!~ s~ V'Y'r.-i- ~~ THE UNDERSIGNED AGREES AS FOLLOWS:' ~ v G~ To perform the work expeditiously, including all digging, tunneling, backfilling and restoration of the surface in a good and workman-like manner, in a fashion as to cause the least possible interference with the movement of traffic and pedestrians. 2. That all barricades and warning signs shall conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices, the standards & specifications on file in the office oity engineering, and chapter 41 of the code of ordinances of the City of Dubuque. 3, o pay the City Treasurer of Dubuque, Iowa the sum for the permit andJor restoration of the pavement surface required by the City of Dubuque. 4. To give at least 12 hours notice prior to the start of excavation and at the beginning of the excavating and at least 12 hours notice prior to backfilling and at the beginning of backfilling operations. 5. To notify the city to allow sufficient time for the city to inspect the proposed repair or construction for conformance to city specifications at least 12 'hours prior to the replacement of any pavement or new sidewalk,. 6, That it is my responsibility to contact Iowa One Call for clearance prior to commencing work. ~ ' 7, Any street closure must be pre-approved by the office of city engineering. 8. I am responsible for contacting Dubuque Law Enforcement Center dispatch. 9. To indemnify and hold harmless the City of Dubuque, its agents, officers and employees from and against all claims for injury or damages to persons or property arising out of or caused by the use of such property, I agree that upon receipt of notice from the City of Dubuque i will defend at my expense the City of Dubuque from any action or proceeding against the City of Dubuque arising out of or caused by the use of such property. I agrees that a judgment obtained in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive in any action by the city against me when so notified as to my cause of the injury or damage, ae to the liability of the city to the piantiff in the first named action, and as to the amount of the damage or injury. The City of Dubuque may maintain an action against me to recover the amount of the judgment together with all the expenses incurred by the city in the action. ' ', I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE APPL9CATION AND PERMIT AND HAVE FULLY COMPLETED, ALL STATEMENTS AND PROVIDED ALL DATA CALLED FAR HEREIN TRUTHFULLY AND CORRECTLY AND I AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL CONDITIONS SET FORTH HEREIN INCLUDED AND UNDERSTAND THAT DEVIATION FROM THE WORK INDICATED ON THIS PERMIT RENDERS THIS PERMIT VOID. Invoice' ``~ ~' "' ~ i ' ~' ~ '_ ~'/~ " _.~t' Com any Name r° .f''~:.~% ~ ~ Signature ~r ~ '' ~ ~ Date J ~ / L'~ ~' P ``) Property Owner ft~.~..~tTi1 "~~`l>1n~ Contact Person&~horie y'= ~',s- ~.~ ~:` Disclaimer: ~ ~ ~/ This permit is not intended to cover every aspect of City Excavation Regulations, and should not be considered the final or definitive authority on any of the matters it addresses. This information is believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed as the information represents the current data from a working file and should only be considered a guide. If you have any questions about the , City's Excavation Regulations, contact the Engineering Department, 50 W. 13~', Dubuque, Iowa 520JJ1-4864 (563) 589-4270; e-mail: engineerin @citvofdubuque.org /~ Engineering Inspector !~~"~,~/~' ~ JJ'yr ~ ~ - ~r Dubuque All-America Gity -- - - ~I~~' ' ~ !~ ~ m 2007 TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer DATE: September 26, 2008 SUBJECT: Dean and Jeanette Rampson of 670 Cleveland Avenue (Follow-Up to September 16, 2008 Letter) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a response to the September 16, 2008 letter of Dean and Jeanette Rampson requesting reimbursement for street and sanitary sewer assessments in the amount of $8,803.00 (assessments plus interest) relative to the 2004 Madison Street Sanitary Sewer Extension Project .and the 2006 University Avenue Reconstruction Project. BACKGROUND Madison Street Sanitary Sewer Project In December of 2004, the City Council accepted the improvements associated with the Madison Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project, established the final contract amount, and adopted the preliminary schedule of final assessments. The project extended sanitary sewer to serve 1829, 1849, 1921, and 1910 Madison Street. The Rampsons are the owners of 1829 Madison ,Street. The sanitary sewer special assessment for their property 1829 Madison Street was established at $5,771.08. University Avenue Reconstruction Project On May 7, 2007 the correspondence from Dean and Jeanette Rampson dated April 23, 2007 was presented to the City Council. In the letter, the Rampsons asked that the City allow them to take advantage of the City's financial assistance program for special assessments and return the $2,147 that they paid in escrow for 1158-1160 University Avenue associated with the University Avenue Reconstruction Project. The letter was referred to City staff. On June 4, 2007 the City Council concurred with the City Manager's belief that that "Mr. Rampson was treated fairly and the decisions to deny his request for financial assistance (toward the special assessment for 1158-1160 University Avenue) were both consistent and in compliance with the City's Financial Assistance Policy." The collection of the $2,147 special assessment was deemed to be appropriate and it would .not be returned. DISCUSSION University Avenue Reconstruction Project The Rampsons assert that the City Council did not comment on their letter of April 23, 2007. That is not the case. On June 4, 2007 the City Council responded by asserting that the decisions to deny their request for financial assistance (toward the special assessment associated with the University Avenue Reconstruction Project) were both consistent and in compliance with the City's Financial Assistance Policy. The City would not refund the $2,147 special assessment collected for 1158-1160 University Avenue. Madison Street Sanitary Sewer Project Mr. Rampson claimed that he came to the Engineering offices sometime in 1994 and talked to me regarding his property at 1829 Madison Street. Mr. Rampson claimed that he asked if the property was connected to sewer. In a memo of December 12, 2003 to the City Manager, I explain that I recall speaking with Mr. Rampson and I recall contacting the Utility Billing Department; the house was being billed for both sanitary sewer and water services. Therefore, I told Mr. Rampson that we believe it is connected to the city sewer. I had no recollection that Mr. Rampson told me that he was considering purchasing the property. If he had, I would have advised Mr. Rampson that he should not rely on the fact that the City was billing the property for sewer service. In many cases City staff will use dye to trace wastewater. Ultimately, it is the property owner's responsibility to know if a property is connected to city sewer or if it has a septic system as septic systems require maintenance. As noted in the attached December 12, 2003 memo, the City held several discussions with Mr. Rampson on the sanitary sewer connection to his property during the project's preliminary design and prior to the project's public hearing. As reported in the memo, Mr. Rampson told (City staff) that he wished that he had told me that he was considering purchasing the property during our discussion in 1994. At the end of the December 2003 meeting, Mr. Rampson appeared to be satisfied with the proposed sanitary sewer assessment: Engineering believed that Mr. Rampson was no longer asking for his assessment to be waived. Mr. Rampson did not raise any concerns about the preliminary assessment at the public hearing for the project held on January 19, 2004. The Rampsons granted an easement for the sanitary sewer project on March 16, 2004. The easement was recorded on March 17, 2004. On February 5, 2005, the final assessments for the Madison Street Sanitary Sewer Extension Project were established by the City Council (Resolution 41-05). Mr. Rampson's final assessment was $5,771.09. Property owners are provided 30 days to make payment to the City's Treasurer's office. After 30 days, the unpaid balance is collected along with the property taxes. State Code established that the interest rate shall be at nine (9) percent payable to the County Treasurer's office in 10 annual installments. Mr. Rampson asserts that he paid off the balance in two years and incurred $884 in interest. The Rampsons ask that the City rebate the $5,772 sewer assessment. The reason they. site is that it would be "in the interest of fairness." The City has completed dozens of sanitary sewer projects over the past two decades, extending sanitary sewer service to properties previously on septic systems. In each case, property owners are asked to pay an assessment in order for the City to recoup a portion of the cost of the construction projects. It would not be equitable to exempt the Rampsons from paying the sewer assessment when all of the past and future property owners have and will be asked to pay their special assessments, their fair share. RECOMMENDATI®N recommend that the City deny the Rampson's request to rebate the $5,772 sanitary sewer special assessment and $884 in interest for 1829 Madison Street collected as part of the 2004 Madison Street Sanitary Sewer Project. Based on the City Council action of June 4, 2007, I recommend that the City deny the Rampson's request to refund the $2,147 street reconstruction special assessment collected for 1158-1160 University Avenue collected as part of the 2006 University Avenue Reconstruction Project. Attach. Cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Bob Schiesl, Assistant City Engineer Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer September 16, 2008 Attn. Hon. City Council members; Dirk Voetberg 4t" Ward, Ric Jones and David Resnick, At-Large RE: Redress of grievances with the City of Dubuque Engineering Department I resubmit the information presented below because I received not a comment from the last city council of my letter of April 23, 2007 (enclosed). Perhaps there was enmity among them toward me because of my vigorous opposition to the proposed River Pointe project. I felt it was my duty, based on the experience I gained at the national level on PUD and large condo developments, to contribute constructive criticism to that issue. That distressed some people. Anyway we all move on. I have expanded on my original letter and brought current some new issues. The following is a chronicle of 12 years of ongoing problems I have with Engineering that have cost my wife and I over $8806 and potentially another $6000, to say nothing of the stress, aggravation and disappointment visited upon us, in my personal and professional opinion, by the unprofessional, callous and out and out incompetence of this department,and especially the current and past City engineers. In summary: The first and most grievous problem was bad information, compounded by a mandatory sewerjob, loss of land to easement, backfill issues and shoddy finish work, followed by a hefty assessment carrying 9% interest (too high says the City Clerk), and we can't find a contractor who will bid on hookup to the stub to my house because of rock and steep terrain; City paving bricks were "stolen" as was our escrow money during the course of the University Avenue paving job; More problems came with the repaving of Madison Street; More shoddy work was done at the Madison street property with the construction of the neighbors' waterline which is still ongoing. God help us on Cleveland Avenue! Please read the following report. With your help perhaps our sagging confidence in city government wiil be restored. We thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I will be at the October 6t" Council meeting for your questions and comments. Respectfully, ~~ ~-,~~ Dean and Jeanette Rarnpson 670 Cleveland Avenue f Problems; 1. Prior to purchase of a duplex residence at 1829 Madison Street I was forewarned by a family relative the dwelling was not on city sanitary sewer. From past experience as a City sanitary sewer inspector I knew there might be a map record for the sewer in question, if not I would not buy. I was referred to Gus Psihoyos of the City Engineering Department and sought his help to answer the question. Several days later he verified the property was on city sewer. I bought the house. Several years later Engineering dyed the toilet at 1829. No dye was observed in the prospective trunk lines. I asked Gus at that time how he had determined 1829 was on sewer. He told me he had called the water department and they told him 1829 was being billed for sewer. He therefore assumed the house was on sewer. I could have done that. Gus let me down. Being billed for sewer is not necessarily being on sewer as I soon found out. He should have checked the maps. What followed was a sanitary sewer trunk line through my property to service me and the neighbor directly above. Our assessment was $5772. Interest at 9% for two years before I had the money to pay off the assessment cost another $884. i ontractorS NJere :,ailed for bids. Two never returned bids ar'id tW0 Others deCliiied tv bid due tv the steep terrain, rocks and a large wall under which the connector would run. It cost the upper neighbor $12,000 to hook up and it will probably cost us around $ 6000 to hookup. A building I should never have bought will end up costing an extra $14,806, and can't produce rental income until it has sewer. It has been vacant since the sewer job. 2. More problems came with the construction of the sanitary sewer. An easement required for the sewer took up almost all of the flat area of our lower back yard. Nothing can ever be built on it. We essentially lost any potential use of this piece of the property forever. Although covered over time the area excavated was a dump full of old glass, rusty metal, rubber plastic etc. Unfortunately I was out of town during this construction so I didn't find out the contractor had back-filled the trench with this junk instead of clean fill. I spent hours doing what the contractor should have done. I filled eight five gallon bucket loads of broken glass and a garbage can full of trash to clean up this mess. i had every reason to complain to Gus but I tir,~as just worn down, and I didn't trust the contractor to do the job right. The contractor took down 16 feet of 5 foot cyclone fence to get through to the back yard. He reinstalled it in an unacceptable manner. Gate posts were out of plumb causing it to not close properly and there was a large gap on the lower right hand side. The fence was poorly reattached in a makeshift manner to the support bars. Gus heard a vigorous complaint about this and it was redone correctly. We all expect jobs to be done in a professional manner both by city persor:nel and bid winning contractors. 3. The surface repaving of Madison Street brought other issues. All deteriorating limestone curbs along the street property line of 1829 were not removed prior to repaving. Only after aggressive interdiction by me was the job done correctly and completely as it should have been done in the first place The driveway pad from the street to the sidewalk was falling apart with several irregular knobs of limestone and broken patches of blacktop. When asked if this would be replaced the job inspector told me no. In the same project Hoffman-Schneider Funeral Home had already gotten two new pads which were not nearly in need of replacement as ours. The unfairness of this situation was pointed out to Gus during a determined discussion I had with him and he finally acceded to replace the pad. The pad was improperly constructed with curb end sweeps instead of bull noses. This is a steep hill. This mistake allowed rain runoff coming down the gutter to roll over the bottom sweep depositing debris on the parking and erode the grassy area. Following this complaint it was agreed that the pad would be rebuilt during the sidewalk construction that was to follow to correct a problem with the retaining wall holding up Madison Street. Following sidewalk construction large clods ofgray-brown clay 4vere thrown largely unbroken into the excavated parking area (about 24" deep) between sidewalk and curb. Some finer soil of the same type was added to the top, raked and seeded. There were no worms in this backfill. It slumped two to four inches within three weeks especially along the sides making it an ankle twister. This so called dirt got rock hard once dry and nothing but crab grass can grow on it. The clay will not hold water. It was filled and sodded but it all turned to crabgrass again. 4. Problems encountered during University Ave. reconstruction; Our primary residence during this project was 1158 University Ave., one half of a duplex with 1160. At the first meeting on the project at Lincoln School, I asked then City Engineer Mike Felderman (now County Engineer) the disposition of the thousands of Purington pavers that were to be removed. He assured me they all would be saved as city property. Removal of the bricks began at Alta Vista St. Curious, I visited the site and was shocked to find truckloads of bricks were, according to a worker, being shipped to Epworth. The foreman told me they were being purchased by private individuals. Some quick measurements and calculations rendered the following information: Market value of the University Ave. Purington paver (largest of the Purington paver line) _ $2/brick, Street width with bricks = 42' Length of street bricks removed from (Alta Vista to almost Alpine) = 290'. Bricks per square foot = 3.3 Therefore: 290' x 42' = 10,180 sq. ft. x 3.3 bricks per square foot = 33,594 bricks 33,594 bricks x $2 = $67,188 $67,188 worth of city property ended up in the contractor's yard in Epworth to be sold to private individuals! Mike Felderman had lied to me. Mike Van Milligan and Ann Michalski were immediately notified of this breach of trust and it was stopped. Not long after Mr. Felderman resigned to become the County Engineer. The approximately $405,800 worth of bricks in the construction zone could have been sold and the projects $1.2 million price tag could have been defrayed by almost 33%. No one in the Engineering Dept. ever looked into that possibility. I declined to make this a public issue because of I didn't want the City Administration embarrassed by what was potentially a scandal. 5. Application for forgiveness of University Ave. Special assessment based on income. My wife and my joint income fior the year 2005 made us eligible for 100% forgiveness of the special assessment for the University project. On July 11, 2006, i spoke to Bob Schierl of the Engineering Dept. I told him proving our income by the due date, August 14"', vras going to be very difficult for us since we had filed an extension with IRS until October 15 and our rather complicated taxes 1 do personally were not even started. I told him I was working long hours every day on our duplex at 1158-60, which vde had put up for sale, to bring it up to tip top condition. Adding to the stress of this period, the tenants at 1160 got hooked on methamphetaminecnd trashed the apartment, prior to eviction, leaving us with NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW 5T" AND 14T" AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA over $4000 damage, and an unrentable unit. On top of this there was plenty of deferred maintenance to catch up to in a short period. We sold the house a couple weeks later with an August 14th closing date, the tax information deadline. We were now in that frantic, chaotic period between finishing the fixing, finding temporary quarters, looking for another house, sorting ,packing, donating, boxing, and cleaning out a house with an attic, cellar, 9 rooms, and three garages. 1 scarcely had time to think about taxes. By now I had no idea what box my files were in. I misplaced the assessment application and overlooked the filling date, under the circumstances, a very human act On September 3`d we moved into temporary quarters with only day to day necessities. That week we were forced to move our house furniture from one temporary location to another. The taxes were finished and submitted to Mr. Schiesl on September 9th, uprising him of my extenuating circumstances. Several days later we were notified that the application was rejected as past the deadline, even though the Engineering Dept. had only submitted the preliminary assessment at this point in time. This meant the loss of our $2000 escrow! The next day I met with Mr. Schiesl pleading my situation. He referred me to Jane Smith. Ms. Smith told me the department had waived the deadline for some other people in the past, based on the fact their applications were submitted before the final assessment, as was ours. We were again told our application was denied. I then met with Mr. Schiesl again and asked what had transpired. He told me he, Gus ,and Ms. Smith had met and Gus indicated his position was to deny and the other two then agreed. I really believe this was punishment for what he perceived as my being a pain in the ass to the department. The process 1 went through to gain access to assessment relief is fraught with inconsistency, subjectivity, and lacks the fairness assured by the requirement of due process. 1. There is no written procedure to follow to appeal decisions, and no body to appeal it to. 2. There is no written procedure for extensions; even the IRS has forms for this. Present engineering policy decisions can be based on subjective criteria. The decision making process is inconsistent and can be unfairly applied from person to person and/or situation to situation. The assessment relief program vas set up to assist eligible citizens based on income, to help defray the often heavy burden to the pocket book for those who need it. I don't think it should be used as an insensitive bureaucratic tool to protect budgets or punish. I firmly believe public servants should serve the people. Deadlines for these kinds of programs should not be carved in stone. ~J~Je appeal to your sense of fairness. Please help bring our problems with the city to a close. In summation, we want the $2147 escrow returned. En addition we request rebate of the $884 in interest we paid on a sewer we should never have had to pay for. In the interest of fairness and that justice is rendered to us we ask that our $5772 sewer assessment be rebated so that we can apply it to our sewer hook-up costs and get our property back into a positive cash flow. Further we request this money be transferred from the City Engineering Department budget and not the general funds. This is a fair and reasonable request: 1. We should have been better served by Gus on the sewer question, 2. I saved the city tens of thousands of dollars of property by blowing the whistle on the brick loss and did not go public with the story, 3. Gus punished us for the problems he had with me by taking our escrow without due process. We are very pleased with the members of the new council. We voted for you. Compared to the City budget and the salaries the professionals earn in the Engineering Department, our request is a pittance. Thank you. Yours truly, ~~ % Dean and Jeanette Rampson 670 Cleveland Avenue 582-4524 July 16, 2008 Dubuque City Engineering Department Re; Waterline construction 1829 Madison St, Belle Aire Const Co. I am vexed over what was left at my doorstep as a result of the poor workmanship and apparent lack of ongoing inspection by Engineering of the above job. The following are examples: 1. Numerous oil stains from leaking backhoe all over our newly paved street 2. Numerous unsightly gouges in the street blacktop 3. Undermining of sidewalk and curbs resulting in their subsidence due to improper back filling, improper tamping (if any) and large voids under the sidewalks which will cause them to continually subside on the street side. This situation could negate the purpose of the new sidewalk - to eliminate water flow to the collapsing city retaining wall. 4. Use of gray-brown clay as soil to support grass. Large clods of this material were shoveled into excavated area without being bro!<en up. When this material dries out only crab grass or other weeds can survive. It will not hold water. Soil material such as that used on Rush Street is called for. !also want sod not grass seed due to erosion from the steep gradient. 5. Poorly constructed curb sections that bulge and undulate exhibiting rushed ferry-built work. 6. Cracked and broken existing curb sections and sidewalk. 7. Sidewalk service pad to my lower house not replaced. 8. Young stop-box too high presenting lawn mowing problem. Taken together this is some of the shodiest work I've ever seen. I expect it to be corrected in a satisfactory and timely manner. Dean Rampson ~/~_ C 1829 Madison Street September 17, 2008 Jane Smith Dubuque City Engineering Department Dear Ms. Smith, This is a follow up fetter to my correspondence of Juiy 16, 2008. Problems remain from the Belle Aire waterline job relative to my property at 1829 Madison Street. Nothing has been done to replace the poor soil used in the parking. Only pig weed and crab grass have grown there and not much of that. It is mostly barren. I again request good soil and sod for this area. The cost of sod for this small area I estimate would be around $20. A section of cracked curb has not been replaced. The stop box tops of both mine and my neighbors are 2" too high to clear the lawn mower blade. Why was the Young stop box put on my property 80' from his building? This seems very inconvenient for him for future water shutoffs. The stop box should have been located adjacent to his building front. I would appreciate your continued perseverance in bringing these issues to a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you. Dean Rampson 670 Cleveland Avenue ,~~-, City Council City of Dubuque Hon Roy Buol Mayor Ric Jones Alai Michalski Kevin Lynch Karla Braig Joyce Conners Patricia Cline Apri123, 2007 RE: Application by Dean Rampson for assistance on special assessment for the University Avenue Reconstruction Project denied by City of Dubuque Engineering Department. On July 11, 2006 I spoke with Bob Schiesl of the engineering department about applying for assistance for the impending special assessment for the University project. I explained to him that proving my families income by the due date was going to be very difficult since I had filed an extension with IRS until October. Further I was working long hours every day on 1158-60 University, which we had put up for sale, to bring it up to tip top condition. This task was made even more difficult when our next door tenants at 1160 were methamphetamine abusers and trashed their apartment leaving us over $4000 in damages in 2005, were evicted and left the unit unrentable for eight months. On top of this there `vas plenty of deferred maintenance to catch up to in a short period. (The property was sold, closing on August 14th, 2006). In addition to the fix-up we were also in that chaotic and frantic period between closing and buying another house, finding temporary quarters, sorting, packing, donating, boxing, storing, moving not only our belongings, but also those of my mother, my brother, and my son, to say nothing of our considerable possessions in a nine room house with an attic and three garages all before 8/14, also the submission date for the assistance. I scarcely had time to think about taxes. Even when i did I had no idea what box my files were in or where in fact they might be found. In the swirl of activity I misplaced the application and overlooked the filing date, given the situation, a very human result, mea culpa. Finally, on September 3, Yve moved into temporary quarters with only day to day necessities. Everything else was in storage including the tax files. When things eventually settled down I searched, found the files, filed my taxes and submitted the assistance application to Mr Schiesl on 9/19. Our application reflected an income crippled by the Loss at 1150, time and labor spent by me solely on the property and outlays for materials and subcontractors; an income so low as to qualify us for 100% forgiveness. it was denied. Too Late, even though the engineering department had submitted only a preliminary assessment.